Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

FLOODS, WINNIPEG (MR. SPEAKER'S MESSAGE)

Mr. Speaker: I think that I ought to inform the House, as I presumed that it was the wish on ail sides, that I have sent a telegram to the Speaker of the Canadian House of Commons. I think that I ought to read to the House the telegram which I have sent:
The whole House of Commons is grieved at the sufferings of the City of Winnipeg caused by the present disastrous floods. The generosity and brave friendship of your country have warmed our hearts on many occasions not far distant; and to you, Mr. Speaker, to the afflicted citizens of Winnipeg, and to the whole Canadian people we send our heartfelt sympathy.

D. CLIFTON BROWN, Speaker."

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

MANCHESTER SHIP CANAL BILL

Read the Third time, and passed.

MID SOUTHERN UTILITY BILL

Read the Third time, and passed.

LEE CONSERVANCY CATCHMENT BOARD [MONEY]

Considered in Committee.

[Colonel Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Resolved:
That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to extend the periods limited by the Lee Conservancy Catchment Board Act, 1938, for the exercise by the Lee Conservancy Catchment Board of the powers therein contained for the compulsory purchase of land and the construction of works for the drainage of the Catchment Area of the said Board and for the prevention of floods therein it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any sums which may become payable thereout by reason of the application by the said Act of 1938 of the provisions of the Land Drainage Act, 1930, in

relation to works authorised by the said Act of 1938 as if those works had been the improvement of existing works and the construction of new works under the said Act of 1930." —[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.

TOWYN TREWAN COMMON [MONEY]

Considered in Committee.

[Colonel Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Resolved:
That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session providing for the extinguishment of common and commonable rights and rights of way and other rights over, and the enclosure of, part of Towyn Trewan Common in the County of Anglesey and the use by the public of a road known as the Burma Road and of a track adjoining the said Common it is expedient to authorise the payment out of Moneys provided by Parliament of such sums as may be necessary to enable the Secretary of State for Air to meet such expenses as may be incurred in defraying:—
the compensation (together with interest thereon) in respect of the extinguishment of such rights; the costs charges and expenses incurred in or in connection with the determination of the persons entitled to such compensation and their respective rights and shares therein and of disputes as to the right or title of persons to such common or commonable or other rights;
the expenses incurred in maintaining and repairing the said Burma Road or otherwise in connection therewith or in connection with the said track;
the costs charges and expenses incurred in repaying to the Conservators of the Common the costs charges and expenses incurred by them, in or in connection with the promotion of the Bill for the said Act; and any other expenses incurred under the said Act."—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Bricklayers, Liverpool

Mr. Keenan: asked the Minister of Labour how many bricklayers were unemployed and reporting to the Liverpool employment exchanges on 13th February, 13th March and 17th April last; how many were signing for less than six days; and how many signed for over six days in the respective periods.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): The figures for the three dates were 76, 49 and 41, respectively but most of


these are not fully skilled bricklayers qualified for the full range of that trade. An analysis of these figures by length of unemployment is not available.

Mr. Keenan: Will my right hon. Friend ask his Liverpool office why, when there is this large number of bricklayers unemployed, contractors are complaining that they cannot get bricklayers?

Mr. Isaacs: Some of the contractors in the trade will not accept these men because they are not fully skilled. We will do our best to see that the men have an opportunity to bring themselves up to a more skilled capacity.

Newport

Mr. Peter Freeman: asked the Minister of Labour what are the numbers and percentage of the population of unemployed men, women, boys and girls separately, at the latest known date at Newport; and what steps are being taken to find additional work for men at the docks.

Mr. Isaacs: As the reply includes a number of figures I will, if I may, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Freeman: Can the Minister say what chances there are of getting increased coal exports through Newport in the future?

Mr. Isaacs: The hon. Member will have to put that question to the Minister of Transport.

Following is the reply:

The following table shows the numbers of unemployed persons on the registers of employment exchanges in Newport at 17th April, 1950, and those numbers expressed as percentages of the estimated total number of insured employees in the area at July, 1948 (the latest date for which estimates are available:



Number
Per cent.


Men aged 18 and over
803
2


Boys aged under 18
50
2


Women aged 18 and over
415
3


Girls aged under 18
41
2


Total
1,309
2

Every possible help will be given by the employment exchange in finding employment for those who require it.

Mr. Peter Freeman: asked the Minister of Labour when the factory for disabled workers in Newport will be started; how many will be employed; and the types of work it is expected to undertake.

Mr. Isaacs: I am at present unable to say when it will be possible to make a start at Newport. Remploy, Limited, need further time to consolidate their trading and financial position and, in the meantime, the building of new factories must continue to be deferred. It is expected that the projected factory will give employment to 100 workers when in full production. No decision has yet been reached as to the type of work to be undertaken.

Mr. Freeman: In view of the fact that this factory has been delayed so long, will my right hon. Friend say when it will be started?

Mr. Isaacs: I am sorry, but I cannot. I can tell my hon. Friend, however, what I do not think will be much comfort to him, that we are unlikely to tackle this further extension for quite another 12 months.

Shipyard Workers, Aberdeen

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Minister of Labour what special action he proposes to take to provide employment for the 160 workers who have, during the last six weeks, been dismissed, and the others about to be dismissed from Messrs. John Lewis shipyard in Aberdeen.

Mr. Isaacs: The employment exchange has already found fresh work for some of the men discharged by this firm and is doing all that it can to help the others to obtain suitable employment.

Mr. Hughes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this is not a case of casual or seasonal unemployment, but is due to conditions in the fishing industry as a result of which large numbers of men are finding themselves unemployed? Will he look into the matter with a view to rectifying the situation and preventing growing unemployment in this industry?

Mr. Isaacs: I cannot accept in detail all that my hon. and learned Friend has said. I understand that 160 workers in this firm were dismissed, whereas the total unemployment at the moment has


gone up by only 45, which means that an equivalent number have been found employment.

Wages Agreements (Cost of Living)

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Labour in how many cases have reports been made to him of agreements containing a cost-of-living clause having been varied since 18th September, 1949, in accordance with the policy of His Majesty's Government; in the case of how many existing agreements, of which he is aware, has no such variation taken place; how many workers are affected in each case; and what increases in wages, salaries or other remuneration have taken place since 18th September, 1949, as the result of the operation of such agreements.

Mr. Isaacs: As far as I am aware the existing agreements, which cover about 1½ million workpeople, have not been varied since 18th September, 1949. The total increases in rates of wages since 18th September, granted as the result of the operation of these agreements, amount to about £110,000 per week.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the intimation of Government policy which he told us in answer to a Question on 1st November had been given in this connection has had no effect?

Mr. Isaacs: Whether it has had any effect or not is difficult to say, because we have no actual information. I have no authority to command information, but have to rely on voluntary information. It is interesting to note that one small area which decided to suspend asked to put it back again with retrospective pay.

Co-Partnership

Mr. Heathcoat Amory: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will now arrange for the resumption of the Annual Supplement to the "Ministry of Labour Gazette" showing the present extent of the practice of co-partnership.

Mr. Isaacs: On present information I am not satisfied that the results would justify the amount of labour and expense involved, but I am having the position examined.

Mr. Amory: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the provision of this kind of information is one of the most useful functions of his Ministry? In view of the number of concerns interested in this method of industrial co-operation, is it not important to make known the extent of development during the last 12 years?

Mr. Isaacs: I should like to assure the hon. Member that I am in complete sympathy with what he has in mind. I am having the question examined to see whether it is practicable to bring it about.

Mr. Wade: What steps have the Government taken to encourage the extension of co-partnership?

Mr. Isaacs: The hon. Gentleman should have put that down as a separate question.

Furniture Industry

Mr. John E. Haire: asked the Minister of Labour to what extent and in what areas there is unemployment or short time in the furniture industry.

Mr. Isaacs: On 17th April last, 2,998 furniture trade workers were registered as wholly unemployed. Of this number 1,027 were in the London area, 240 in Glasgow, 224 in Liverpool, 64 in High Wycombe and 52 in Manchester. In addition, a certain amount of short time has recently been reported in some areas. On the other hand, a considerable amount of overtime is being worked.

Mr. Haire: Can my right hon. Friend give any reason for this slight increase in unemployment?

Mr. Isaacs: No, Sir, I cannot.

Inshore Fishing Industry

Mr. G. R. Howard: asked the Minister of Labour what is the average age of fishermen engaged in the inshore fishing industry in this country.

Mr. Isaacs: I regret that this information is not available.

Mr. Howard: Is the Minister aware that the present state of affairs is such as to be extremely discouraging to young men wishing to come into this vital industry?

Mr. Isaacs: With all respect, I cannot see what that has to do with asking for information about the average age of those employed in the industry.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL SERVICE

Dr. Barnett Stross: asked the Minister of Labour how many of the National Service men in an average year are the sons of widows; and how many are only sons.

Mr. Isaacs: I regret this information is not available.

Dr. Stross: Has my right hon. Friend ever considered the possibility of exempting some of these classes, for example, the only sons of widows?

Mr. Isaacs: That is quite another question.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION

School Attendance Services

Mr. J. R. Bevins: asked the Minister of Education the total annual cost of school attendance services for England and Wales; and the approximate percentage of schoolchildren who are unjustifiably absent from school at any one time.

The Minister of Education (Mr. Tomlinson): This information is not available.

University Students (Grants)

Mr. Ralph Morley: asked the Minister of Education what steps he is taking to ensure that the number of university students will be the same in 1950–51 as in 1949–50; and that the percentage of students in receipt of financial assistance from public funds shall not be less than 70 per cent.

Mr. Tomlinson: The capacity of universities and the number of admissions are not matters within the control of my Department. On present information, I should expect that the percentage of new students in the academic year 1950–51 assisted from public funds would be of the order of 70 per cent., but with so many uncertain factors my hon. Friend will not expect a precise assurance.

Mr. Morley: Is it not a fact that there will be 5,000 fewer grant-aided students

sent to the universities this year compared with last year? Can my right hon. Friend increase the number of State scholarships or, alternatively, persuade the local authorities to make more awards?

Mr. Tomlinson: I do not think those figures are accurate.

Dr. King: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the financial aid received by a number of students is inadequate, and can he do something to see that local authorities implement the scale he has recommended?

Mr. Tomlinson: It is a fact that some local authorities are not as generous as others in their grants, but I have done all I can by way of encouraging them. I certainly cannot force them.

County Schools (Religious Instruction)

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the Minister of Education what proportion of State-provided schools have no religious education.

Mr. Tomlinson: I assume that the hon. Member refers to county schools, that is, schools established by local education authorities. No schools are provided directly by my Department. In county schools, as in voluntary schools, Section 25 of the 1944 Education Act requires that the school day shall begin with collective worship and that religious instruction shall be given.

Sir W. Smithers: May I ask the Minister whether, in accordance with his recent public announcement; he will make religious education a first priority in his policy?

Mr. George Thomas: Is my right hon. Friend not satisfied that the great advance which has taken place in religious education since the day when the hon. Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers) went to school is producing a more enlightened type of citizen?

Sir W. Smithers: On a point of Order. Can you not, Mr. Speaker, do anything to suppress these doubting Thomases?

Men Teachers

Mr. Chetwynd: asked the Minister of Education what is the proportion of men teachers for senior pupils and junior


pupils, respectively; and what action he is taking to bring about a more balanced use of teachers.

Mr. Tomlinson: In January, 1949, the latest date for which information is available, 55.9 per cent. of the teachers of senior pupils and 38.1 per cent. of the teachers of junior pupils, other than infants, were men. It will be necessary to increase these percentages to 60 and 40, respectively, at the earliest possible date if the most effective use is to be made of the available teachers, and I take every opportunity to remind local education authorities of the need to achieve these objectives without delay.

Mr. Chetwynd: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that everything possible is now being done to get an adequate supply of women teachers?

Mr. Tomlinson: Yes, Sir, I am doing everything which is humanly possible to get them.

Divisional Administration Schemes

Mr. Chetwynd: asked the Minister of Education how many local education authorities have submitted proposals for abolishing or modifying schemes of divisional administration in accordance with Circular 210.

Mr. Tomlinson: Five, Sir.

Mr. Chetwynd: Will my right hon. Friend give the names of those authorities, and make it quite clear that it is not his intention to abolish the divisional executives?

Mr. Tomlinson: The counties concerned are Devon, Somerset, Dorset, Berkshire and Buckinghamshire. I would point out, that I included in the circular a note saying that any economies must be consistent with the purposes which the divisional administration were designed to serve. There is no question of abolishing divisional executives under these powers.

Punishments and Rewards (Report)

Mr. Chetwynd: asked the Minister of Education whether he has yet received the report of the Foundation for Educational Research on the inquiry into the effects of various forms of punishment and reward on children.

Mr. Tomlinson: No, Sir. I understand that a first draft of the report has now been prepared and is being considered by the National Foundation for Educational Research. It is hoped that the report will be completed not later than the end of July.

Mr. Peter Freeman: Have facilities been provided for organisations to give evidence at this inquiry?

Mr. Tomlinson: I could not say whether widespread opportunities have been given to all and sundry, but I know that organisations interested in this subject have been contacted by the Foundation.

Teachers' Salaries

Mr. Martin Lindsay: asked the Minister of Education when he expects to receive recommendations from the Burn-ham Committee in regard to a revision of teachers' salaries.

Mr. Tomlinson: The Burnham Committee is to meet at the beginning of June to consider a revision of the current scales for teachers' salaries. The Committee arrange their own meetings and their own procedure and it is, therefore, impossible for me to say when they will submit their recommendations to me.

Earl Winterton: Would it be proper to bring to the attention of the authorities in question the grave anxiety that is felt in all parts of the House about the present scale of teachers' salaries, with a view to accelerating a decision?

Mr. Tomlinson: I do not think it would be proper for me to do that.

Mr. Lindsay: Will the right hon. Gentleman at any rate give an assurance that when the recommendation is received it will be considered as quickly as possible?

Mr. Tomlinson: I do not think there is any reason to suppose that any Minister of Education has ever done otherwise with a Burnham Committee Report.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: Is it not more important that, not only should it be considered but that their recommendation, if any, for increases in salary should be accepted by the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues?

Mr. Tomlinson: If I may say so, I think that remarks of that kind could be made only if a Minister had rejected them.

Mr. Pannell: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that local government finances also have to be considered in any revisions of salary of this sort?

Mr. Haire: asked the Minister of Education how many full-time schoolteachers, male and female respectively, in Buckinghamshire, receive less than £300 per year, between £300 and £400 a year,

—
Under £300 a year
Between £300 and £400 a year
Over £400 a year


Men
Women
Men
Women
Men
Women


Qualified Teachers
…
—
155
120
346
527
418


Graduates (included above)
…
—
—
12
39
158
72


Unqualified Teachers
…
38
126
—
—
—
—

County Colleges

Mr. James Johnson: asked the Minister of Education the number of local education authorities that have opened county colleges since 1945; and the total number of county colleges and the total number of pupils receiving instruction.

Mr. Tomlinson: No county colleges on a compulsory basis have been opened, but in 1948–49 there were 160 separate voluntary day continuation schools provided or assisted by public authorities. In that year there were in all 141,000 students between 15 and 17 years of age attending over 700 part-time day classes in establishments of further education. The greater part of this development has taken place since 1945, but I cannot give precise figures.

Mr. Johnson: Will the Minister not agree that perhaps this total is somewhat low, in view of the high hopes we held in 1945?

Mr. Tomlinson: It depends on what the hopes were as to whether the total is low now. I do not think that it is a low total.

Comprehensive Schools

Mr. J. Johnson: asked the Minister of Education the number of comprehensive

and over £400, respectively, and what is the number of graduates in each case.

Mr. Tomlinson: As the answer contains a number of figures I will with permission circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The number of full-time teachers employed in maintained and assisted schools or establishments in Buckinghamshire on 31st March, 1949, known to be receiving salaries of less than £300 a year, between £300 and £400 a year and over £400 a year respectively were as follows:

schools that are now actually in operation; and the total number of pupils who are in attendance.

Mr. Tomlinson: I would refer my hon. Friend to my answer of 16th May to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd), of which I am sending him a copy.

Mr. Johnson: Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that these are all genuine comprehensive schools, in the sense that they are non-selective and that there is no special place examination attached to them?

Mr. Tomlinson: I can give this assurance: that they are comprehensive schools in the opinion of the people who are running them; but as every other person seems to have a different idea of what a comprehensive school is, I could not say that they all meet all the requirements of my hon. Friend.

Miss Bacon: Will my right hon. Friend do everything he can to encourage these schools and so abolish the dreadful system of deciding, when a child is 10 years of age, what its future shall be?

Mr. Tomlinson: I have been encouraging all kinds of schools, including these, over since I became Minister of Education.

Mr. Peart: asked the Minister of Education the number of local education authorities who have included comprehensive schools in their development plans.

Mr. Tomlinson: Eight local education authorities have included proposals for comprehensive, as distinct from multilateral, schools in their development plans, and 33 have included proposals for multilateral schools.

Mr. Peart: Will my right hon. Friend encourage local authorities to go in for this type of school development?

Mr. Tomlinson: I have asked local authorities to present development plans. They have made provision for all kinds of schools in those plans, and I am constantly being asked to expedite the approval of those plans. It seems to me that to ask them at this stage to begin revising the plans they have already made would be going a little too far.

Teachers (Broadcasting Fees)

Mr. Peart: asked the Minister of Education what guidance his Department gives to local education authorities on the question of teachers' fees from broadcasting.

Mr. Tomlinson: This is not a matter on which it would be appropriate for the Ministry to give guidance to local education authorities.

Mr. Peart: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I have been informed that it has been the practice of some local authorities to claim back these fees; and is that not rather mean of the authorities in question?

Mr. Tomlinson: The contract of the teacher is between the local authority and the teacher himself, and this is therefore a matter for the local authority.

Independent Schools (Scholarships)

Mr. J. Johnson: asked the Minister of Education how many local education authorities have sent scholarship boys to schools on the Headmasters' Conference list; and what is the number of boys that have been sent and the total expenditure involved.

Mr. Tomlinson: I cannot given the particulars asked for, since information is not available in this detail of the extent to which local education authorities pay or assist with the fees at independent schools. The most comprehensive information I have, based on a special return and relating to boarding schools generally and not merely those whose headmasters are members of the Conference, is summarised in paragraph 80 of Chapter I of my Department's Report for 1948.

Mr. Johnson: Is the Minister aware that many teachers are disturbed because in this way we are losing our best pupils from the secondary schools at a critical age to bolster up the fee-paid public schools?

Mr. Tomlinson: I do not think the figures indicate any need for worry on that count.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: Is there any reason why the cleverest boys should not have advantage of the best education, which evidently they were not getting before?

Mr. Tomlinson: My contention is that they are getting it.

Schools (Housing Estates)

Mr. Ashton: asked the Minister of Education if when considering the overall school building programme, he will give special consideration to those local education authorities who, in addition to their normal school accommodation problems, are having to provide school places for children on large housing estates erected within their areas by other authorities.

Mr. Tomlinson: I have already taken these special circumstances into consideration in the preparation of the first instalment of the school building programme for 1951.

Mr. Ashton: Is the Minister aware that the schools in five housing estates in the administrative county of Essex have been allotted no less than £620,000 out of a total of £827,000 during the first instalment of the five year programme; and is he satisfied, in the light of those figures, that the county has not been penalised in any way?

Mr. Tomlinson: I am satisfied that that amount of money was necessary to make provision for the children in that area.

Mr. Ashton: Including the whole of the county?

Mr. McAdden: Is the Minister not aware of the considerable dissatisfaction which exists in the county of Essex as a result of the burden which is inflicted upon many village schools in the county, because of the overwhelming priority given to schools necessary for the accommodation of people decanted into Essex by the L.C.C.?

Mr. Tomlinson: I would point out that the children who come into the new housing estates have certainly got to be provided for.

Administration, Buckinghamshire

Mr. John E. Haire: asked the Minister of Education what proposals the Buckinghamshire Education Committee has made to him for the revision of educational administration in the county; and if be will state the details.

Mr. Tomlinson: On 29th November, 1949, I gave my consent, under paragraph 11 (1) of Part III of the First Schedule to the Education Act, 1944, as amended, to the making by the Buckinghamshire County Council of a varying scheme of divisional administration. I understand that the county council are now in the process of preparing their scheme, but it has not yet been formally submitted to me.

Mr. Haire: In accepting these proposals did my right hon. Friend bear in mind that they did not meet with much local approval, and that on a previous occasion he turned down a similar scheme?

Mr. Tomlinson: I have not accepted any proposal. All I have done is to give permission for submitting proposals and preparing a scheme.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA

British Subjects (Repatriation)

Mr. Eric Fletcher: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations how many British subjects have been

repatriated from India at the expense of His Majesty's Government since August, 1947, through the failure of Indian firms to observe contracts made in India.

The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. Gordon-Walker): I am aware of two such cases.

Mr. Fletcher: May we take it from that that the Minister is satisfied that the interests of British subjects are being adequately looked after?

Mr. Gordon-Walker: Certainly. I am quite satisfied.

Ex-Officials (Compensation)

Mr. Norman Bower: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations if he is aware of the hardship caused to British subjects who were members of the non-Secretary of State services in India and resigned their appointments on the transfer of power owing to the change in their conditions of service by reason of the fact that they have been granted no compensation for the loss of their careers; and if he will now place them on the same basis as former members of the Secretary of State services as regards payment of compensation.

Mr. Gordon-Walker: The officers concerned were appointed by the Central or Provincial Governments of India, and their conditions of service were regulated by those Governments. Many have remained at their posts; and those who resigned did so of their own accord. They were not dismissed; indeed, the continuation of their existing conditions of service was guaranteed before the independence of India and Pakistan by the party leaders. This guarantee was announced to the House by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 10th July, 1947, during the Second Reading of the Indian Independence Bill.
In November, 1948, the Governments of India and Pakistan introduced proportionate pension schemes for Europeans of non-Asian domicile who might thereafter wish to retire prematurely, on the understanding that compensation would not be payable in addition. This condition was fair and reasonable, since the employing Governments did not wish to dispense with the services of the officers but were, nevertheless, giving them the option of


retirement, and it was accepted by the United Kingdom Government. Some officers had already resigned, and so forfeited their claim to a pension or gratuity from the employing Government. In suitable cases they have been given a grant, at the expense of United Kingdom revenues, towards off-setting this loss. His Majesty's Government can see no reason for giving them, in addition, compensation for loss of career, as the Governments concerned were desirous of retaining their services.

Mr. Bower: Is the Minister aware that the only reason why some of these officers resigned was because their conditions of service did undergo a serious deterioration following the transfer of power; and if that is so, ought they not to be compensated on the same basis as members of the Secretary of State services?

Mr. Gordon-Walker: My hon. Friend realises, I think, the difference between the Secretary of State services and the non-Secretary of State services. I can go into it, but it is a long story. The non-Secretary of State service members were in no case dismissed. Where they have retired they have received either proportionate pensions or, from our own revenues, an equivalent payment. I do not think there is any case for compensation for loss of career like that received by the Secretary of State services.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that, though the conditions of service may technically have remained the same, such intangible matters as chances of promotion did undergo some alteration; and is there not a case on those lines?

Mr. Gordon-Walker: I quite agree. But on the other hand, the Governments of India and Pakistan have agreed to pay these people proportionate pensions, which they were not obliged to pay. There has been a balancing factor on the other side.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

British Standards Institution

Mr. Albu: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has yet received the report from the committee

which he set up to consider the organisation and constitution of the British Standards Institution.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Harold Wilson): No, Sir. I understand that the committee is nearing the end of its task and is at present engaged in drafting its report.

Film Industry

Mr. Maudling: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the difficulties facing the film industry, he has considered the advisability of establishing a development council for that industry.

Mr. H. Wilson: I am reviewing the whole field of policy in relation to the film industry, including the question of the most appropriate form of central organisation.

Mr. Maudling: As this is the first time that the House has been told that the right hon. Gentleman has been considering the possibility of this method of dealing with the problems of this industry, may I ask when he will be able to give us the results of his deliberations?

Mr. Wilson: I think that there will be an opportunity in the near future to discuss film problems. That would be the time when I would give this information to the House.

Mr. E. Fletcher: Is my right hon. Friend taking the views of the Cinematograph Films Council on this subject?

Mr. Wilson: I have taken the views of the Council on the Plant Report and the Plant recommendation for a central body with independent members.

Mr. Maudling: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will specify the provisions in our existing international obligations which preclude the granting of a rebate of entertainments tax in cases where a cinema shows a British film.

Mr. H. Wilson: We are bound under a number of pre-war commercial treaties and under the Geneva Tariff Agreement to treat imported goods no less favourably in matters of internal taxation than like domestic products.

Mr. Maudling: Is the Minister aware that a scheme of this nature is apparently


in operation in Italy, with considerable benefit to the film industry and without any objection from the signatories to the Geneva Agreement?

Mr. Wilson: I am well aware of the scheme in operation in Italy. We have been considering it very carefully, but Italy has only acceded to the Geneva Agreement in the very recent past and I am not prepared to say whether she is or is not in default on that Agreement.

Mr. Braine: Is it not a fact that if some easement of taxation is not speedily afforded, the production side of this industry will collapse? Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the industry is of sufficient value to the country for him to address his mind to this matter before the disaster occurs?

Mr. Wilson: That is another question on which facilities will no doubt be available for Debate on a future occasion. This question refers to the granting of a rebate of Entertainments Duty on a discriminatory basis.

Earl Winterton: Before we have the film Debate to which the right hon. Gentleman called attention in a previous answer, could we have substantial information obtained through the Foreign Office or the right hon. Gentleman's Department, to show what foreign countries are observing this Geneva Convention? My information is that they are breaking it very widely.

Mr. Wilson: I have made inquiries on this question. The information as I have it is that Italy is the only country with a scheme in force of the kind referred to. I should be very glad to consider how we could let the noble Lord and other hon. Members have the information which we have.

Cotton Goods (Imports)

Mrs. Eirene White: asked the President of the Board of Trade on what basis dollar allocations are made to private traders to enable them to import cotton dresses, skirts or blouses from the United States.

Mr. H. Wilson: These imports are licensed under the token import scheme, whereby United States manufacturers are permitted to send to the United Kingdom

20 per cent. by value of their pre-war trade in certain specified goods, including women's dresses. An import licence and the appropriate foreign exchange will normally be granted to any importer whose American supplier is entitled to participate in the scheme.

Mrs. White: While thanking my right hon. Friend for his explanation, may I ask whether he is aware that when we are being asked to forego extra sugar, canned fruit and salmon, and other dollar goods which cannot be purchased in this country, it is rather tantalising to see advertised in the public Press very simple imported cotton skirts which can be produced equally well—and as cheaply, I hope—in Lancashire?

Mr. Wilson: The House has had many opportunities of debating the token import scheme. We would all feel that the total disruption of this import channel will be regrettable, and as the imports only came to £19,000 in 1949 they would not make much difference to the point which my hon. Friend has in mind.

Oral Answers to Questions — FIRE SERVICES (COST)

Mr. J. R. Bevins: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the total cost of the Fire Service College for the years 1948–49 and 1949–50; the weekly cost per officer trained in those years; and the estimated cost of the college for 1950–51.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): The total cost of the Fire Service College in 1948–49 was £43,744 and the weekly cost per officer trained was about £40; the accounts for 1949–50 have not yet been closed, but the corresponding figures are expected to be about £47,500 and £36 respectively; the estimated cost for 1950–51 is about £50,000. The last figure does not include the cost of adaptations to the new and smaller premises to which it is hoped to move the College next year.

Mr. Bevins: Will my right hon. Friend consider closing this very expensive and extravagant showpiece?

Mr. Ede: I am hoping to move this College into much smaller premises, which will result in very substantial saving.

Mr. Nicholson: Would not the same end be served if the officers were attached to fire brigades in London and the larger cities, instead of having this extraordinarily wasteful establishment?

Mr. Ede: No, Sir, it would not.

Mr. Bevins: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that the total cost of fire services in England and Wales has increased from £2,857,387 in 1936–37 to, approximately, £12,000,000 in 1948–49; and what steps he proposes to reduce the cost without impairing efficiency.

Mr. Ede: Comparisons with 1936 are apt to be misleading. Apart from changes which have since taken place in the conditions of service of firemen, the fire protection of the country at that time was inadequate, whether for peace or for war, and it was for the purpose of improving the position that the Fire Brigades Act of 1938 was passed; the provisions of that Act were extended and adapted by the Fire Services Act, 1947. I have no reason to suppose that the local fire authorities are not mindful of the need for due economy but, while every vigilance will be exercised in curbing any expenditure that may be unnecessary, I do not think that any substantial reduction of the present cost is possible without impairing efficiency.

Mr. Bevins: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that while many local authorities are mindful of the need for due economy they are inundated with circulars and instructions from the right hon. Gentleman's Department which compel increased expenditure?

Mr. Ede: No, Sir. No instructions are issued by my Department, but circulars giving advice are sent round.

Mr. David Renton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the structure which the Fire Service Act compels local authorities to adopt is causing enormously increased expenditure without increased efficiency? Has not the time come to review that Act, with a view to cutting down the public expenditure involved?

Mr. Ede: I would point out that before the Act of 1938 the London County Council was the only authority which had a

statutory duty to provide a fire service and that a large number of smaller urban and rural districts had no satisfactory service at all. We cannot expect that an adequate service can be provided in view of those conditions without a substantial increase in cost.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is not the cost less than 2 per cent. of the money spent on the Defence Services?

Oral Answers to Questions — LICENSED PREMISES (HOURS)

Mr. James Hudson: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware of the letter from the Metropolitan Commissioner of Police which the chief constable was asked to produce this year at the Sutton and Epsom Brewster Sessions; and if the policy outlined in the letter in favour of a uniform closing hour throughout the country is now the generally accepted policy of the Government.

Mr. Ede: I understand that, at both the Sessions in question, on an application for the alteration of the permitted weekday closing hour from 10 to 10.30 p.m., the police gave evidence to the effect that experience has shown that the absence of uniformity in permitted hours, particularly in the evening, encourages a movement of public house customers across the boundary of adjoining licensing divisions. It is not for His Majesty's Government to make any pronouncement on a matter of policy which is left by Parliament to the discretion of the local licensing justices.

Mr. Hudson: As this question of the discretion left to licensing justices has hitherto been enshrined in legislation, is it quite clear that there is now no encouragement given by the Home Office or the police authorities to change the method that has been laid down by legislation?

Mr. Ede: There has been no change of policy. The police were asked to give evidence as to what happened across the boundaries of two local licensing divisions. They gave their evidence, and I have no reason to think that it was other than truthful.

Oral Answers to Questions — DR. KLAUS FUCHS

Mr. G. Thomas: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department to what extent permission has been granted to foreign representatives to question Dr. Fuchs; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Donnelly: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are his regulations governing the questioning of prisoners in British jails by police of other countries; and to what countries are these facilities granted.

Mr. Wyatt: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what conditions will govern the interrogation of Dr. Klaus Fuchs, at present in one of His Majesty's jails, by officers of the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation; and what precedents there are for interrogation of His Majesty's prisoners in England by officials of a foreign Power.

Mr. Fernyhough: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement to the House in connection with the permission which has been granted to officials of the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation to question Dr. Klaus Fuchs, the atomic scientist at present serving a 14 years' sentence of imprisonment in His Majesty's prison.

Mr. Ede: I would refer my hon. Friends to the reply given on 11th May to my hon. Friend the Member for North-field (Mr. Blackburn), to which I have nothing to add.

Mr. Thomas: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this distasteful departure from normal procedure is watched with some anxiety by the public, and can he say whether the prisoner concerned will be legally represented when foreigners are questioning him in our prison?

Mr. Ede: This prisoner's activities were also exceedingly distasteful, and it is necessary that the State should take such steps as it can to protect itself against such activities. This man need not answer any questions unless he chooses to do so. He will not be interviewed unless he expresses a willingness to be interviewed.

Mr. Fernyhough: Does not my right hon. Friend think that this is rather a reflection upon our own M.I.5 and Scotland Yard, and would they not have been capable of interviewing this man and getting from him, if he is prepared to volunteer it, the information which the Americans are seeking?

Mr. Ede: No, Sir. There is no reflection on the police services of this country in this matter, but some of the offences which this man has committed were committed in the United States of America, and I think it is desirable, in the interests of both countries, that as far as possible his activities should be investigated.

Mr. Donnelly: What are the normal regulations governing cases of this kind? Could my right hon. Friend also say to what countries these facilities are normally extended?

Mr. Ede: This is the first time that such facilities have been granted because this is the first time that such an offence has been committed.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Can my right hon. Friend say why it was not thought sufficient for the information which the United States police want to get from this man to be put to him by our own police forces? Can he also say whether any arrangements have been made to provide himself with a copy of any statement which may now be made?

Mr. Ede: A British officer will be present if this interview takes place, and it will be conducted according to British practice. It is important—I should have thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) would have recognised it—that some questions should be followed up by supplementary questions and it is, therefore, desirable that a person who can supply the information for an appropriate supplementary question should be there to put the question.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Will my right hon. Friend take care that at any such interrogation there will be present responsible British scientists, so that full advantage may be taken of any further information elicited?

Mr. Ede: No, Sir, I do not think that that would be desirable. I think that if


an officer representing the British police or the British security service is present that will be enough.

Oral Answers to Questions — WHITE FISH INDUSTRY

Air-Commodore Harvey: asked the Prime Minister what arrangements he is making for the Ministries concerned to take immediate action regarding the difficulties facing the fishing industry; and if he will make a statement.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): The position of the white fish industry is being examined by the Departments concerned with a view to determining what measures are necessary to help it to overcome its difficulties. Until that examination is completed I am not prepared to make a statement.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Will the Prime Minister say when the decision is likely to be reached? Does he realise that day by day hundreds of men are being thrown out of work, and that unless something is done in the very near future the whole industry will collapse?

The Prime Minister: I am quite aware of the position; inquiries are being pressed on as quickly as possible.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Will my right hon. Friend take care to see that in any such inquiry the restoration of the flat rate for the carriage of fish from Scotland to England is considered, because the present state of affairs is causing considerable unemployment in Scotland? Alternatively, would he consider the provision of a subsidy for the white fish industry?

The Prime Minister: No doubt all these matters will be taken into consideration.

Mr. Douglas Marshall: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the urgency, in the case of the inshore fishing industry, is absolutely desperate?

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: Is my right hon. Friend aware that congratulations have been pouring in from fishermen as a result of the action of the Government in solving the difficulties of the herring industry, and can we look forward to the same promptness in coming to a decision in respect of the white fish industry?

Mr. Daines: Is it not strange that the apostles of private enterprise scream out when their principles are applied?

The Prime Minister: We are accustomed to that.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE

Domestic Poultry Keepers

Mr. Gerald Williams: asked the Minister of Agriculture if he is now in a position to make an announcement as to the recommendations of the committee, which has been considering the organising and development of domestic food producers, to provide continued protection for domestic poultry keepers against restrictive provisions in tenancy agreements after the Defence Regulation has lapsed.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Thomas Williams): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on 11th May to the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd).

Farm Estate, Titchfield

Surgeon Lieut. - Commander Bennett: asked the Minister of Agriculture what are his intentions with respect to the Brownwich Farm estate, near Titchfield, Hampshire.

Mr. T. Williams: The future of this property, which was acquired for the purposes of an experimental horticulture station, is under consideration, and I am unable at present to make a statement.

Surgeon Lieut.-Commander Bennett: Can the right hon. Gentleman at least inform us whether he has been approached by any planning authorities about the change of function of this property?

Mr. T. Williams: Not so far as I am aware.

Land Commission

Mr. G. Williams: asked the Minister of Agriculture why no arrangements were made for the accounts of the Land Commission for the year ended 31st March, 1949, to be printed till 20th March, 1950.

Mr. T. Williams: Arrangements were made for the accounts to be included in


the Second Report of the Agricultural Land Commission which was laid before Parliament and ordered to be printed on 29th November, 1949.

Mr. G. Williams: Is the Minister aware that stale accounts are worth only half the value of accounts when they are fresh and, also, that the delay of the accounts for a year looks very bad on the part of His Majesty's Government?

Mr. T. Williams: Yes, Sir, but the hon. Gentleman must be aware that printed copies of the Report were available on 16th January, 1950.

Mr. Awbery: Can my right hon. Friend say if the potato acreage is determined by his Department, or left to the haphazard discretion of the farmers?

Mr. T. Williams: That does not arise on this Question.

Mr. G. Williams: asked the Minister of Agriculture why, according to the accounts of the Land Commission, salaries and wages of £3,685 were needed to collect rents of £4,304.

Mr. T. Williams: The small acreage of land under the Commission's control during the first year of operation accounts for the high overhead charges as compared with receipts from rents. If, however, the hon. Member has read the report of the Commission, he will appreciate that the functions of estate management are not limited to the collection of rent, and that during the year the Commission spent much time in inspecting properties placed under their charge and considering the works of repair and improvement which were necessary on most of them.

Mr. G. Williams: As it is to cost this money, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will give an estimate of what it will cost the country if the land is nationalised?

Mr. T. Williams: If the hon. Gentleman will read the Land Commission's report I think he will change his mind.

Fishing Vessels

Mr. Douglas Marshall: asked the Minister of Agriculture how many fishing vessels were laid up for the week ended 13th May.

Mr. T. Williams: In Great Britain on 13th May, 156 fishing vessels, including

16 seine net vessels, were laid up. In addition, some 159 ring net vessels and 250 Scottish herring drifters were kept in port pending the outcome of discussions with the Herring Industry Board about the prices to be paid for herring in the 1950 summer season.

Mr. D. Marshall: Is the Minister aware of the anxiety that this is causing, and can he tell us how soon he may be able to make a statement? Has he consulted his colleague the Minister of Food about the regulation of foreign imports?

Mr. Williams: I should have thought that the hon. Member would have heard the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister a few moments ago.

Mr. Marshall: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Prime Minister made no suggestion as to how soon he would be able to make a statement?

Mr. Williams: Neither do I.

Mr. Charles Williams: Was not the Prime Minister's answer wholly unsympathetic to the fishing industry?

Mr. T. Williams: No, Sir.

Uncontrolled Dogs

Mr. Bossom: asked the Minister of Agriculture what information he has as to the number of lambs and sheep killed or worried by uncontrolled dogs last year in Kent; and what action he is taking to prevent this occurring again this year.

Mr. T. Williams: During 1949, the police in Kent were notified of 147 sheep killed and 76 sheep injured by dogs. Following discussions with the National Farmers' Union I have considered very carefully whether it is possible to do any more by legislative action to prevent such losses, but have come to the conclusion that none of the proposals discussed would be practicable and effective. In Kent, as elsewhere, local authorities have regulations which make it an offence to allow a dog to be out of control during the hours of darkness, and the police have certain powers to seize stray dogs. I understand that the Kent police are taking energetic action to enforce these provisions.

Mr. Bossom: Does not the Minister realise that this is a serious situation, and that not only during the hours of darkness but during the hours of daylight this


condition prevails? Cannot he do something to help the police? The police would do their best if the Minister would give them some encouragement.

Mr. Williams: If the police have any recommendations to make as to what they think might be possible, and legislatively practicable, I will look at them.

Earl Winterton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the south of England generally great cruelty is caused to sheep and lambs by uncontrolled dogs? In view of the fact that animal welfare societies seem more interested in protecting dogs than sheep and lambs which are tortured by the dogs, will he take some action such as, for example, having notices put up calling attention to the grave damage which is being done?

Mr. Williams: The suggestion of the noble Lord might be taken note of by the Kent or Sussex police, but I do not think the dogs would worry about a notice.

Major Sir Thomas Dugdale: Will the right hon. Gentleman take note of the fact that the nuisance is not confined to Kent, but is universal throughout the country?

Mr. Williams: That is true to a greater or lesser extent.

Pert Drainage Board

Mr. Cooper-Key: asked the Minister of Agriculture upon what authority the Pett Drainage Board is demanding drainage rates for the years 1940–45 from local householders who were compulsorily evacuated during this period; whether he is aware that these accumulated demands presented at this late date are causing hardship to the householders concerned; and whether he will take steps to have the demands withdrawn.

Mr. T. Williams: The Drainage Board derives its powers to levy rates from the Land Drainage Act, 1930. I am not aware that the Board's demands are causing hardship, but if in any particular case they are, there is a procedure for dealing with the matter under the Liabilities (War-Time Adjustment) Act, 1944.

Grassland Experiments, Leek

Mr. Harold Davies: asked the Minister of Agriculture how much money

was spent by the Staffordshire Agricultural Executive Committee on the grassland experiments at Mixon Hay and Westbrook Head Farms, Onecote, Leek, and to what extent when these farms were sold recently his Department received money for betterment.

Mr. T. Williams: No money has been spent by the Staffordshire Agricultural Executive Committee on grassland experiments at these farms which were substations of the Ministry's Grassland Improvement Station until Lady Day, 1945. Since that date they have been farmed by the Staffordshire Agricultural Executive Committee as lands in hand. The experimental leys which had been established were continued for as long as possible but no additional expenditure was incurred.
The farms were held by me under leases which have recently been determined. The lessors will pay compensation which normally arises on the termination of an agricultural tenancy, but the amounts have not yet been settled.

Mr. Davies: Is the Minister aware that while this experiment has proved a success, and the Advisory Service are to be congratulated upon it, the means of applying it to the small hill farmer in need seem impossible because of the lack of capital reserves, and can he suggest any way by means of which they will help? Finally, what money have the Government spent on this experiment?

Mr. Williams: No separate accounts were taken for the sub-stations, but in 1945, on the advice of the Agricultural Improvement Council, it was decided to concentrate grassland experiments at Drayton and Dodwell, and the substations were transferred to the respective county committees to be farmed as lands in hand.

Executive Committee, Staffordshire

Mr. Harold Davies: asked the Minister of Agriculture if he will now publish an up to date list of all the members of the Staffordshire Agricultural Executive Committee with their qualifications for appointment.

Mr. T. Williams: I am sending my hon. Friend a list showing the present membership of the Staffordshire Agricultural Executive Committee. In making


appointments to the Committee I have selected persons who are conversant with the agriculture of the county or who have administrative experience, and whose knowledge, ability and standing in the county are recognised by the industry.

Mr. Davies: Is my right hon. Friend aware that among small farmers there is a feeling that they have little representation on this committee, and can he evolve a formula by means of which the small man will have a greater say on it?

Mr. Williams: Apart from the local representatives, there is a smallholder on this committee.

Prices

Captain Duncan: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is now in a position to announce the minimum prices for milk, fat stock and eggs in 1952–53 and 1953–54.

Mr. T. Williams: No, Sir; but I hope that I shall be able to make an announcement after the Whitsuntide Recess.

Captain Duncan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the statement issued to the House on 23rd March, it was said that this statement was deferred on the condition that it would be published Within two months?

Mr. Williams: Negotiations have been, and are taking place, and I hope the announcement will be made early after the Whitsuntide Recess.

Wool Prices

Mr. Baldwin: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that, although the sheep population of Great Britain has increased since 1947, it is still considerably below the year 1939; and whether, in view of the estimated surplus of about £2,000,000 on the sale of the 1950 clip, he will increase the price of wool, which would encourage the increased production of sheep, particularly on hill and marginal farms.

Mr. T. Williams: Yes, Sir. I am aware of the trend of the sheep population. A surplus of the dimensions referred to by the hon. Member would only arise if the present high level of world prices were maintained throughout the selling season, namely, up to the end of July, 1951. The

prices of the 1950 clip published yesterday should provide a reasonable return to sheep producers.

Mr. Baldwin: If the Minister cannot give a better reply, will he at least make it known to one of his hon. Friends that guaranteed prices to farmers do not always mean the injection of more feathers into a bed?

Mr. Williams: I hope the hon. Gentleman will convey that to my hon. Friend.

Wool Marketing Scheme

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Agriculture the stage reached in the preparation of a wool marketing scheme; and the date when sheep farmers will be asked to vote on the scheme.

Mr. T. Williams: My colleagues and I are now awaiting the report of the public inquiry held recently into certain objections to the wool marketing scheme. The poll of registered producers cannot take place until Parliament has approved the scheme.

Mr. Hurd: Can the Minister give us an idea of when this scheme will be brought before Parliament, and what time has to elapse after he has received the report from the Commission?

Mr. Williams: I cannot say that, because I do not know when the inquiry will conclude.

Mr. Renton: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that this and other marketing schemes will not be held up by his Department so as to become an issue at the next General Election?

Mr. Williams: That is another question.

Captain Duncan: Is this a Great Britain marketing scheme, or will there be a special one for Scotland?

Mr. Williams: It is a Great Britain scheme.

Sugar-Beet Factory

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Agriculture if he has now reached a decision on the proposal to establish a beet-sugar factory to serve the southern counties of England.

Mr. T. Williams: No, Sir.

Mr. Hard: When does the Minister expect to complete these considerations, because we are getting rather anxious in the southern counties?

Mr. Williams: No decision can be taken on that until after the future of the home grown industry has been discussed, negotiated and settled.

Sir T. Dugdale: Is the Minister giving attention to this problem at the moment, because there is a great demand in the South of England for such a factory?

Mr. Williams: Yes, Sir, it has been given some consideration, but it only forms part of the capital expenditure programme.

Oral Answers to Questions — AFFORESTATION SCHEME, TOWY VALLEY

Mr. Baldwin: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether before the Towy Valley Afforestation Scheme is proceeded with, the South Wales Conservancy Advisory Board will be consulted.

Mr. T. Williams: No, Sir. It is not one of the functions of these committees to advise on proposed acquisitions by the Forestry Commission.

Mr. Baldwin: Could the Minister say what is the value of this Conservancy Board if it is not to give advice on this subject, which is of extreme importance to the people whose land has been taken for afforestation?

Mr. Williams: It happens not to be one of the bodies which the Forestry Commission consult before they acquire land for afforestation.

Mr. Hopkin Morris: Will the right hon. Gentleman consult the Farmers' Union before he comes to a decision?

Mr. Williams: Not necessarily.

Oral Answers to Questions — FLOODING, SALFORD

Mr. Hardy: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that the Salford City Council are required to pay approximately £40,000, equal to a 9d. rate, towards the prevention of flooding of the River Irwell; and if he will reconsider this matter, with a view to easing the burden to the corporation.

Mr. T. Williams: I am aware that work to prevent flooding at Salford has been under consideration for some time past, but I have not yet received any detailed scheme or any proposals for financing the work.

Mr. Hardy: Will the Minister, when be receives representations, take a favourable view? Three years ago there was a serious flood which cost £500,000, and no assistance was given from the Government towards the cost. In view of the expression of sympathy to Canada yesterday might we expect something for the City of Salford?

Mr. Williams: Yes, but until a scheme has been produced, and submitted, it is difficult to say what would be one's attitude towards it although, of course, sympathy would always be there.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST-WAR CREDITS

Mr. Profumo: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider amending the existing arrangements with regard to the payment of post-war credits, so that in the event of death before payment the entitlements shall be paid to the estate of the deceased either when the widow reaches the age of 60 of when the deceased would have been 65 in the case of a man or 60 in the case of a woman, whichever is the earlier.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Douglas Jay): If post-war credits are left to a widow she can claim repayment on reaching the age of 60. I cannot extend the arrangements as suggested by the hon. Member.

Mr. Profumo: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that great injustice is being caused in hundreds of cases to people who are being barred from getting what is, in justice, due to them? Is he aware that there are many cases where people will never get post-war credits at all, because they get passed down from father to son, and so on? Is this what his right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor desires to do in this respect?

Mr. Jay: No, there is no injustice— [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—as long as everybody has the opportunity of getting post-war credits at the same age. There would be injustice if we differentiated between one person and another.

Mr. Shurmer: Could my hon. Friend tell us what the position would be in the case of an applicant who had put in an application for his post-war credits and died during the period of transfer?

Mr. Jay: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would put that question on the Paper

Mr. Profumo: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is grave concern all over the country about the treatment of postwar credits by the Government? Does he realise that people are calling his right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor very rude names, which I am inclined to think he deserves, because this is the most monstrous swindle that any Government has ever perpetrated?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a question.

Oral Answers to Questions — FLOODS, WINNIPEG (RELIEF MEASURES)

Mr. Eden: (by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether he has now considered further the possibility of offering any material assistance to the Canadian Government for the people of Winnipeg, so that this country can show its practical sympathy with them in their ordeal.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. A telegram has been sent to the United Kingdom High Commissioner in Canada telling him that we are anxious to demonstrate our sympathy with the people of Winnipeg in some practical form. He has been asked to see the Prime Minister of Canada and to inform him that if there are any gaps in Canadian relief arrangements which we could help to fill we should be only too glad to do all in our power to help in the way of drugs, medical services, skilled personnel, etc. I am sure that the House will cordially endorse this offer.

Mr. Eden: May I make one or two suggestions over and above the medical personnel? What about clothing, which this country can supply, I think, on effectively as large a scale as any one; and perhaps also livestock, in which a great loss has fallen upon that part of Canada? I wonder whether the Prime Minister could not consider whether under some auspices a fund might be opened, to which I have no doubt many people would like to subscribe, in order to send

this help once its nature has been determined by conversations between the Governments.

The Prime Minister: I think it would be best if we waited to see what are their urgent needs. We have no information at present as to what are their particular needs and how we can best fill them. I think that if hon. Members would await the reply to what the High Commissioner has put before the Canadian Government, that would be best.

Mr. Eden: I quite accept that, but will the Prime Minister consider the suggestion of the fund which I have made?

The Prime Minister: I will consider it then.

Oral Answers to Questions — LONDON DOCKS INQUIRY (COMMITTEE)

Mr. Eden: (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Labour if he is now in a position to give the names of the Committee which he is setting up to investigate the situation in the London Docks.

Mr. Isaacs: The composition of the Committee which is to investigate the situation at the London Docks will be as follows:

Sir Frederick Leggett, C.B. (Chairman), formerly Deputy Secretary of the Ministry of Labour and National Service.
Mr. A. M. Holbein, C.B.E., F.C.G.I., Vice-President of the Federation of Civil Engineering Contractors.
Mr. G. H. Bagnall, C.B.E., Chairman of the E. & W. Ridings Regional Board for Industry, formerly General Secretary of the National Union of Dyers, Bleachers and Textile Workers.
Sir Robert R. Hyde, K.B.E., M.V.O., Founder of the Industrial Welfare Society.
Sir Wilfrid Garrett, formerly Chief Inspector of Factories.

The Secretary of the Committee will be Mr. K. Barnes, of the Ministry of Labour and National Service.

Mr. Geoffrey Cooper: Could my right hon. Friend possibly give consideration, even at this late date, to the work of the Committee being extended to other dock


areas where there have been disturbances during the last two years? May I have an answer, because Middlesborough is a case in point?

Mr. Isaacs: No, Sir.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Eden: May I ask the Leader of the House if he can tell us the Business for next week?

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): The Business for next week will be as follows:

MONDAY, 22ND MAY—Supply (14th Allotted Day), Committee;

Debate on the Building Industry, with special reference to the Working Party's Report.

TUESDAY, 23RD MAY—Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Diplomatic Privileges (Extension) Bill;

Conclusion of the Committee stage, and if possible, remaining stages of the Coal Mining (Subsidence) Bill;

Second Reading of the Public Registers and Records (Scotland) Bill [Lords];

Second Reading of the Colonial and other Territories (Divorce Jurisdiction) Bill [Lords].

WEDNESDAY, 24TH MAY—Supply (15th Allotted Day), Committee;

Debate on the situation in the Far East and South-East Asia.

THURSDAY, 25TH MAY—Committee and remaining stages of the Foreign Compensation Bill;

Remaining stages of the Highways (Provision of Cattle-Grids) Bill; and of the

Remaining stages of the Coal Mining (Subsidence) Bill, if not already disposed of;

Second Reading of the Maintenance Orders Bill [Lords].

FRIDAY, 26TH MAY—It is proposed to adjourn for the Whitsun Recess until Tuesday, 13th June.

Mr. Geoffrey Cooper: In view of the considerable number of hon. Members who are balloting each day for the Adjournment, could my right hon. Friend give consideration to the allocation of each Friday of the present Parliament to Private Members?

Mr. Morrison: This is a new one and I would like to think about it.

Mr. Peter Thorneycroft: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman when it is proposed to take the Transferred Undertakings (Compensation to Employees) Regulations?

Mr. Morrison: I am afraid that I do not know.

Mr. Thorneycroft: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it will be possible to take them before Whitsun, because he will appreciate that these men are being treated with some unfairness and that a great deal of hardship is being caused; and it is really time that something was done by this Government both to pay for the businesses they have taken over and to compensate the men they have thrown out of work?

Mr. Morrison: I will look into the point.

Mr. Edgar Granville: May I ask the Leader of the House if he can give consideration for time in the future for the discussion of electoral reform?

Mr. Morrison: That, of course, is a large subject, and I noted what the Leader of the Opposition said in the Debate on the Address in reply to the King's Speech I would be clear in my mind if I knew whether the Conservative Party had changed their policy upon proportional representation.

Orders of the Day — HIGHWAYS (PROVISION OF CATTLE-GRIDS) [MONEY]

Resolution reported:
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for cattle-grids in highways, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament—

(a) of any increase attributable to the provisions of the said Act in the sums payable out of the Road Fund;
(b) of any increase attributable to the provisions of the said Act in the sums payable out of moneys provided by Parliament under Part I or Part II of the Local Government Act, 1948."

Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — HIGHWAYS (PROVISION OF CATTLE-GRIDS) BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Colonel Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(PROVISION OF CATTLE-GRIDS AND BY-PASSES.)

3.38 p.m.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I beg to move, in page 1, line 6, to leave out from "road," to "subject," in line 7, and to insert:
or to the owner and occupier of any agricultural land adjacent to a road expedient to prevent or control the passage of animals along the road, the authority may after consultation with such owners and occupiers and.
The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Transport will recollect that during the Second Reading a number of my hon. Friends and I referred to the difficulties which might arise in initiating the whole process of providing cattle-grids and by-passes. We felt that the Bill was vague as to the procedure which ought to be adopted by those concerned, whether land-owners or occupiers, or the highway authorities themselves, in order to take advantage of the Measure. Accordingly, we have put down this Amendment to give clearer definition to the object of the Clause and to secure that, whether the person concerned is an owner or an occupier, on the one hand, or is the highway authority, on the other hand, the two parties should be drawn together in this first Clause of the Bill and that a clear indication should be given to all concerned as to the procedure to be adopted.
We are anxious that someone should move to get a cattle grid or by-pass, installed and we are not entirely satisfied-with what the Parliamentary Secretary said on Second Reading, that the highway authority could act in some instances and owners and occupiers in others. The Amendment does two things. It gives a clear indication to owners and occupiers that they are entitled and empowered to move first in the matter of, the provision of grids and, secondly, a point incorporated in the Amendment prevents the highway authority from proceeding entirely on their own.
There is some danger that a highway authority might get an idea about a road and the provision of a cattle-grid upon it, work on that idea, draw up plans and proceed to install it, before there was any local consultation at all. We think that in various ways the whole process would be cheapened if the advice of owners and occupiers were sought ab initio whenever a scheme was adumbrated and highway authorities could be required to call them into consultation. This is what is sometimes called a second line Amendment to the one which immediately succeeds it. Some of us would not be disposed to press the second Amendment if the Minister felt there was something in the idea of the first. If we had prior consultation provided for and the highway authority were effectively stopped from proceeding on their own without consultation, it would be unnecessary to require that the scheduled procedure should be brought into play.

Colonel Clarke: I wish to support the Amendment more particularly on the ground of the time that might be saved if the procedure envisaged in the Amendment took place. I think the usual procedure in the country if persons require some alteration made in a highway is well known. They write to the surveyor, or see their local county councillor, if the county council, as is usually the case, is the local authority, and, in due course, what they suggest is brought up at a sub-committee of the roads and bridges committee of the county council. In most cases those sub-committees meet once in three months. The matter then has to go to the full committee and, in due course, to the council. That takes a considerable amount of time.
Some of that time might be shortened if, in the first place, the local agricultural interests, possibly through some representative body such as the Central Landowners' Association, or the National Farmers' Union, could go straight on at a higher level to the county council. This Amendment would not entail any more expense, but it would save a great deal of time, and I am particularly supported in my view that it would be wise to adopt it by certain words that were used by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture at the end of the Second Reading. He said:
We have been asked from different parts of the House, who will initiate all this work. I suspect that the farming community will do so; that it will be they who will come forward with requests, suggestions and proposals.
This Amendment is offering quick means for those requests to be canalised.

3.45 p.m.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Barnes): I want to make it plain that I do not approach this Amendment in any sense of arbitrary hostility. As the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) stated, we had a discussion on this point during the Second Reading and I think that the reply which my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture then gave was an eminently sensible one. He said:
I suspect that the farming community will do so;"—
that is, take the initiative on the majority of cases where cattle-grids are required—
that it will be they who will come forward with requests, suggestions and proposals."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd May, 1950; Vol. 474, c. 1645.]
My only opposition to an Amendment of this description is that it appears to me quite unnecessary to attempt to detail to persons their opportunities under a Measure of this kind.
Obviously the need for a cattle-grid springs primarily from the agricultural interest. The contacts between the agricultural interests in the locality, who would first see the need for a cattle-grid, and their relationships with their municipal representatives are generally close in those areas and they usually represent the same kind of knowledge and experience. I cannot conceive that if in

any particular locality a grid were needed for any farmer, or group of farmers, they would not be aware that Parliament has made general provision for such grids and they would take the necessary steps to put the machinery into motion. I do not wish to begin to build this up into a large Bill because, as I said when I introduced it, it is a small Bill and I do not want unnecessary language, which serves no useful purpose, in it. From that angle I ask that the Amendment should not be pressed. I do not think it would serve any useful purpose.
I see the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton) straining at the leash, which rather suggests that if we are not careful we may turn an issue of this kind, which I do not think is really very important, into a Debate. If the noble Lord would at this stage allow the matter to rest and not to press his Amendment, I will undertake to look at it between now and Report stage and, probably, I could make an observation then, if we do not find that we can so re-word this Clause as to embody the point he has made. Frankly, I do not want to do it, but I will have another look at the matter rather than be projected into a Debate on a matter which I do not think is very substantial.

Mr. David Renton: I appreciate the manner in which the Minister has approached this Amendment. I am inclined to agree with him that it is not strictly necessary; but I suggest to him that when he is looking at the matter again he should bear in mind that when we grant powers we should not confine those powers to the bare legal necessities, but that sometimes a great practical advantage can be obtained psychologically by putting words into the Statute which will be words of encouragement.
The initiative for using powers which Parliament grants rests not with us but, as we all understand, with other people. If we leave the Clause as it is I am very much afraid that people will say, "It is up to the local authority and if they do not do anything about it there is nothing that can be done." But, if we put in the words we have suggested, we make it abundantly clear that it is quite open to a farmer or landlord to use his initiative and the experience he has gained on his own land if he considers there is a need for a cattle-grid. He will know that Parliament is encouraging him to go


forward to approach the local authority while the local authority will know that Parliament expects the farmer or landlord at least to be considered. Therefore I suggest that when he is looking at this matter again it might be useful to consider having these words in the Bill from a practical point of view, although I grant that from a strictly legal point of view they may not be necessary.

Mr. Slater: I should like to ask the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton), relative to what he has said about farmers and the institution of cattle-grids, whether the opinion of the farmer is not taken into account when he makes his request to the highway authority for the putting down of a cattle-grid? If it is not taken into account in the county from which the hon. Gentleman comes I would inform him, as Chairman of the Highways and Bridges Committee of the County of Durham, that we do not meet each quarter but every month, and that as regards cattle-grids, the opinion of the fanner or the representative of that part of the county is taken into consideration by the county authority.

Mr. Renton: I entirely agree with what the hon. Member says. The highways committee of the county I represent do their work thoroughly and well. The hon. Member has missed the point I wished to make. I will not repeat it but ask the hon. Member to bear in mind this example. Suppose that the legal adviser of the farmer or occupier, perhaps a country solicitor, turns up this Bill when it has become an Act and reads Clause 1, and sees the words:
Where it appears to the appropriate authority for any road …
he will turn to his client and say, "There is nothing there about the farmer having a say in the matter. You will have to wait until the county council do something." If that were to be the line of approach, it would be unfortunate.

Mr. John Morrison: I accept what the Minister has said but I support my noble Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) in saying that the farmer and user of the land next door are more likely to know

than anyone else. I hope that the Minister will consider the point.

Amendment negatived.

The Deputy-Chairman (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): Viscount Hinchingbrooke.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: In view of the offer which the Minister has just made, I do not propose to move the next Amendment in the names of my hon. Friends and myself: in page 1, line 10, at end, insert:
Provided that the powers given by this subsection shall not be exercised until after complying with the provisions of the Schedule to this Act.

Mr. Gerald Williams: I beg to move, in page 1, line 12, after "gate," to insert "with an automatic lock."
This is a small Amendment which I hope the Minister will accept because it may in the long run save a great deal of money by stopping ponies and cattle from straying over land and doing considerable damage. A gate is no use if it is to be left open. There is always the human element and anyone going through a gate may forget to close it behind them or may not bother to do so. If, as I suggested on Second Reading, a stile took the place of a second gate, that would halve the danger there would otherwise be of two gates being left open. But whether there are one or two gates some self-locking device would be a great asset.
The automatic lock I suggest is not a lock with a key; it really means that the gate is set in such a position that if it is left open it automatically swings back and a steel runner fits into a slot. It is a simple device which I have seen used in deer parks with great success. I hope the Minister will consider whether such a lock should be put on all these gates. If the little contrivance of which I have been speaking is used, the Minister will find that practically no expense will be involved, and in the long run a great deal of money will be saved by the prevention of damage.

Mr. Barnes: I do not wish to dispute the advantage of the automatic lock. Rather, would I make the point that we should not attempt to make provision in the Bill for any device of this kind. It occurs to me that such a matter is


eminently one for inclusion in any technical guidance which the Ministry might agree to give to local authorities on this subject. I would stress the general attitude which I have adopted towards this Bill. The whole drafting of the Measure has been designed to place the initiative and a good deal of responsibility in these matters on the local authorities, and there is a minimum of provisions in the Bill relating to the central Government Department. That is so because it appears to me that the need with which this Bill deals arises not only in rural areas but in many isolated rural areas, and we desire to avoid in a Measure of this kind any kind of machinery provision or unnecessary reference to a central Government Department.
When we come to such matters as the form of gates and the locks that should be installed, I would remind the Committee that people in these areas often have strong ideas on such subjects. They are used to a particular type of gate in their locality or a particular form of access to their farm or fields. Therefore, I should prefer to leave the matter with which this Amendment deals for inclusion in any technical guidance we can give. I assure the hon. Member there will be no question of excluding the point he has raised.

Mr. Williams: I thank the Minister for saying that he will consider the point contained in my Amendment and possibly include it in any guidance he sends out. I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman says, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. H. L. D'A. Hopkinson: I beg to move, in page, 1, to leave out lines 18 to 22.
The object of this Amendment is to make it obligatory upon the appropriate authority to provide a by-pass or gate in all cases. The present proviso allows the authority to dispense with that in respect of "driven, led or ridden animals," subject to the procedure for appeals laid down in the Schedule. I understand there is a difference of opinion as to whether bicycles can or cannot be ridden across these grids. What is quite certain is that animals cannot cross them. Therefore, it means that in two sets of cases the right of way for traffic may be

eliminated. Those cases are those of stock—cattle, sheep and ponies—and of horse-driven vehicles and ridden horses.
4.0 p.m.
In the first case, the whole object of this Bill is to enable stock to be kept up on the moorland, and in order for it to be of any value it must be possible to get them in and out. As regards horse-driven vehicles and ridden horses, there is no doubt that some provision must be made in the wilder parts of the country, where there are horse-drawn vehicles belonging to farmers, gipsy caravans, carts and several well-known packs of foxhounds and staghounds. At the moment it would be impossible in those places for those who keep and own stock and for the owners of vehicles to move about freely. It is essential in each case that there should be some alternative form of access provided, and that it should be made obligatory.
The Minister suggested on Second Reading that it would be sufficient if in certain cases there was a loop or parallel road such as is depicted in the drawings in the Library. I do not believe that that is the case. In the drawings in the Library there is provision made for a road leading through a farmyard. I do not believe the farmers will welcome other people's stock, gipsy caravans, and so on, going through their farmyards. There is the possibility of T.T. cattle or attested herds being endangered in that way. The provision of a gate alongside the grid is by far the cheapest item concerned in the structure. An ordinary wooden gate is all that is necessary, and a few yards of gravelled road. It would be far better to make the provision of a gate or by-pass obligatory in every case. If the Minister feels able to accept this Amendment there will be a consequential Amendment in Clause 2, subsection (4) which has not been dealt with in any of the other Amendments.

Mr. Grimond: I wish to make a short point in support of this Amendment. I am not quite sure of the importance attached to the words. "driven, led or ridden," but it would seem that one of the most important categories would be the animals which might simply stray. Cases will arise in the crofting counties where gates are normally opened between certain times in the year to allow the animals to pass.


If there is no by-pass and no gate they will not be able to pass. I would ask the Minister to look into that point as it affects the crofting counties.

Mr. J. Morrison: I wish to support my hon. Friend. A cattle-grid is a bar to any stock driven to market on their own feet rather than conveyed in trucks. There is also the point about the horse vehicle, and the man who rides a horse, —I still do that and enjoy it. The right hon. Gentleman may know that one thing one cannot do with safety when riding a horse is to jump a cattle-grid.

Mr. G. Williams: I also looked at the plan in the Library, and apart from the road going through a farm, it also appeared to be a private road. It would seem almost intolerable that traffic which cannot go over a grid should have to go along a private road, and through a farm, and possibly a mile out of its way. There may be people living in the country who still drive into the town each day in a pony and trap. If they have to go a mile further there and a mile further back, and it takes them perhaps an hour, that will waste a considerable amount of their time during the year. The old "moke," or the pony drawing the trap may have to do another 50 or 100 miles during the year, and therefore will require more oats, and there will be a certain amount of expense to people using the route regularly. As it would be inexpensive to put up a small gate opposite the grid I hope the Minister will make it a practice to do so in every case.

Mr. John Grimston: I support the Amendment on one further ground which has not yet been mentioned. A case where the Minister does not think it necessary to provide a gate is shown on map No. 4 in the Library. There is shown a by-pass road which, in the view of the Minister, horse traffic could use. But he will notice that on that map there is a little triangular field in the middle, which is sandwiched between two grids. It would be impossible to get any cattle into that field without going through another field. If there are growing crops in the other field then cattle could not be taken through it at all for possibly a quarter or half of the year. I think the Minister will find that it is cutting his expenses far too fine to do away with

a gate. Wherever there is a grid there must be a gate.

Mr. Barnes: That shows the danger of a Minister attempting to give an example of any particular proposal he intends to bring forward, because it may be interpreted to cover every circumstance. I do not know whether hon. Members appreciate what they are pressing me to do. All we have done here, and it is the normal device of the legal draftsmen, is to give more freedom and latitude to highway authorities in dealing with what might be an exceptional case.
It is recognised that the vast majority of cases will attract the Schedule, and there will be a by-pass or a way round provided. That is the general purpose of the Bill. But this proviso has been inserted so that local authorities need not provide one in a case where no one wants a way round. I have no objection to re-examining this matter in the light of the arguments put forward, but I would emphasise that the proviso is there to meet what in fact might be an exception to the general rule.
I thought that hon. Members would welcome the giving of that discretion to the local authorities, but if they wish the thing to be absolutely hard and fast, I will look at it again. I will not give any definite promise at this stage. The arguments have not convinced me, and I think it would be an advantage to give that discretion to the highway authorities.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: The right hon. Gentleman supports the proviso on the ground that it provides for the exceptional case in the arrangement for the grids, but he gives no examples of what these exceptions could be. It seems to me that the proviso gives very considerable power to the highway authorities to select the roads on which they shall fail to provide a by-pass. A great deal of other sorts of traffic which are unsuitable for passing over grids will also want access to the roads. That traffic includes handcarts, perambulators, gipsies' vans, bicycles and motor-cycles. The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson) complained on the Second Reading about the effect on the bicycling community of the provision of grids. If in this proviso not even side-gates are specified to enable cyclists and motorcyclists to go through, or a wider gate


for vans, perambulators or horses and carts, no progress will be shown.
This proviso really makes nonsense of the whole business of the requirement to provide by-passes. We are not disposed to accept it without further explanation from the Minister of the examples he has in mind. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Hopkinson) would feel very much inclined to put this Amendment down again on Report stage, because the Minister has given an undertaking that he will look at the matter and, if necessary, take rather more active steps than he has indicated today.

Mr. Renton: The Minister must make up his mind whether or not there are serious exceptional cases. If he says that there are no exceptional cases, when he has really cleared his mind on the whole matter, then obviously the proviso is unnecessary. Using the argument which he used on the previous Amendment, I suggest that the proviso should be deleted, because there is no compensating argument of encouragement such as was then put forward. But if there are exceptional cases, the Minister owes it to the Committee to tell us precisely what they are. We have a genuine fear that the kind of exceptional cases which he has in mind are just those which, if his alternative proposal of going through a farmyard is carried out, will lead to a great deal of trouble.
I am taking the right hon. Gentleman seriously in thinking that that may be the only serious exception, and I will make one or two remarks about that alternative proposal. Clearly, we are inviting trouble when we divert traffic that would normally not go through a farm and compel it to go through.

Mr. Barnes: Suppose there happened to be another and convenient alternative access, would the hon. Member still insist that the authority should go to all the trouble of acquiring the land and building a by-pass?

Mr. Renton: I have a fairly ordinary imagination. I know of scarcely any country lanes which are duplicated, and it is only when a county lane is duplicated that there would be a suitable alternative readily available. If the right hon. Gentleman can point out any remote country lane where a grid is likely to be

placed and where there is a road running parallel—or two tracks running parallel or something like that—then we might listen to him; but the Committee knows perfectly well that such things just do not happen. I will grant that if they did happen, then there would be a very good reason for not having an ordinary gate immediately adjoining the cattle-grid. In that case I think we should be quibbling.
To return to the point I was making when the Minister intervened, I would say that once we put on a farm a gate, for the maintenance of which the highway authority are responsible, then there will be cases of dispute between farmers and highway authorities on the question of maintenance. There will be all the bother about the opening and shutting of gates after the traffic which is forcibly diverted through the farm. I do not think that that is fair on the occupier of the farm that we should put him to the trouble when a reasonable and suitable alternative exists. That alternative is to follow the main wording of the Bill without the proviso.
I fear that there is a genuine danger that unless we cut out this proviso, highway authorities may take advantage of it on grounds of economy. I am all in favour of economy, but we ought not to impose on the community the installation of cattle grids, or for that matter anything else, which, through a desire for economy, will lead to the kind of inconvenience and trouble I have attempted to describe. For these reasons, I suggest that the Minister has not seen our point of view. I hope that the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Hopkinson) will not drop this Amendment without an undertaking from the Minister that he will consider the matter seriously.

4.15 p.m.

Sir Austin Hudson: I was one of those who on the Second Reading thought that this proviso was sensible, but when I saw the drawings in the Library—I did not have the opportunity of seeing them until after I had spoken—I was rather surprised because, as I said in the Debate, my idea was that this proviso would only be used where there was a road closely adjacent which could be used. I know certain cases where that state of affairs exists. The object of this Bill is to improve roads


and not to make them worse than they were before. It seems to me that what the Minister has in mind would certainly not improve the roads.
I think all hon. Members really want this Bill to work. I can visualise a position where a farmer or the owner of lands wants a grid which would be most convenient. When he realises that if he gets one, the whole of the horse and cattle traffic as well as perambulators and pedestrians will go through his farm, he certainly will not press for it. He will do all in his power to see that no change is made. There is more in this point than I thought on Second Reading, and I am glad that the Minister has said that he will consider the matter again.

Mr. Barnes: I have not really been convinced by the arguments. I still feel that the arguments in favour of the proviso are the strongest. I advise that both sides of the Committee reconsider this matter before the Report stage. I believe that, on balance, the highway authorities would prefer this discretionary power, but it is proper that both sides should have a look at it between now and a later stage.

Major Sir Thomas Dugdale: I should like to try to convince the Minister. I have no doubt that the highway authorities would like to have discretionary power. I speak on behalf of all who have had experience of these grids. At my own home I have got one which is not a beautiful grid such as the Minister proposes, but a very small one which is used entirely for private purposes. It is impossible to have a by-pass which would take a horse and cart. There is not enough room for that. But we have a handgate and it is a terrible nuisance. If the Minister wants this Bill to improve the roads—and that is the real point of this little piece of legislation—he ought to make it a definite obligation that where a grid is made there should be a by-pass alongside it which would take a horse and cart or any vehicle which cannot get across the grid.
There is another example I can give from personal experience. For the purposes of convenience I thought that I would close up the grid so that foot passengers could go across and not come to any personal harm. Luckily, nobody

has come to serious harm so far, but already children have got caught in the grid itself. There should be a gate next door to the grid through which children going to and from school can pass. Local authorities would like to have discretion, and I hope that the Minister will take further advice from his advisers as to the rare cases where it would not be necessary, and that he will accept this suggestion and remove this proviso before we reach the next stage of the Bill.

Mr. John Hay: There is a further reason why I would press the Minister to reconsider his attitude towards this Amendment, and if possible to accept it. As I understand it, this Bill provides in Clause 10 that certain regulations will eventually be put forward in connection with the construction of grids, which will mean that in course of time there will be regulations explaining exactly how the grid is to be constructed and its siting in relation to the road. Acceptance of this Amendment would lead to the greater standardisation of these grids, and might lead to a greater measure of economy. As I understood the Minister, he was a little concerned about local authorities incurring expense where it was not really necessary. I think that there might be a certain saving if there were a standardisation of the lay-out and set-up of these grids. For that reason also I strongly advise the Minister to accept this Amendment.

Mr. Slater: I understand the point of view of the Opposition, and I believe they are sincere in making this proposal, but I cannot agree that it should in all cases be obligatory upon local authorities to provide by-passes. In my view, the county councils, who are the highway authorities, ought to be given such discretionary powers; they have expert technicians working in their departments. I have often heard the Opposition challenging various Ministers for usurping the powers of local authorities in certain Measures they have introduced, but I certainly think that in this Bill discretionary powers ought to be afforded to highway authorities, who should be responsible for determining whether a bypass should be introduced at a grid or not.

Mr. Crouch: I rise to support this Amendment, and to elaborate


a little on a point which the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Slater) seems to have overlooked. Reference has been made to taking a horse and cart a mile round on a by-pass road; but think of the pedestrian and of children having to go considerably out of their way. There is, too, the risk of catching their feet in trying to pass over the grid. For that reason alone I think that a gate of some sort should be provided at a cattle-grid.

Mr. Hopkinson: While I still feel that we need these gates or by-passes in every case, in view of the assurance of the Minister that he will look into the matter, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Hopkinson: I beg to move, in page 2, to leave out lines 6 to 13.
The object of this Amendment is to remove the proviso
that where there is a wall, ditch, fence, hedge or other boundary of a nature to prevent the passage of animals which runs along the side of the road but is separated therefrom by any common or waste land … the appropriate authority may place any part of a cattle-grid or provide a by-pass, on any of that land.
although it does not belong to the authority. I find it very difficult to understand the object of this proviso. There must be very few cases on a road fenced in in this way—because in this instance we are referring to fenced roads and not open common land—where a grid is wanted. Indeed, as far as I can see, it could only be where a fenced road runs into an unfenced common or moor, where part of the grid could overlap into the fenced section of the road.
I cannot understand why in this very rare case it has been decided to give an authority power to take this land when that is not done in the far more usual cases referred to elsewhere in the Bill. The acquisition of land is dealt with very fully in Clauses 8 and 9, which lay down the procedure for acquiring land in at least 99 per cent. of the cases where grids are to be provided. I cannot see why the same procedure should not be applied to those very rare cases where there is a fenced road running into a common land and a grid is wanted. In my view, this proviso should be deleted.

Mr. Barnes: I must confess that I am in a difficulty, because the argument of

the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Hopkinson) now seems to be entirely contrary to his argument earlier. The object of this proviso is to enable an authority to put a cattle-grid or a by-pass on a strip of common land. Surely the hon. Member is not suggesting that they should go to all the trouble that is required in securing a strip of common land for that purpose. It appears to me that there are all the necessary safeguards. If the Minister came to the conclusion that an encroachment upon land would be unjustifiable, he could refuse to agree to the proposal. I therefore do not quite see the point the hon. Gentleman has in mind. I should have thought there was all the advantage to be gained by retaining this proviso.

Mr. Hopkinson: Perhaps I might explain myself in a little more detail. This proviso refers to the case of a road where there is a fence or hedge running alongside with a small section of waste land in between. It does not apply to the ordinary case where we should want to put a grid, which is at the entrance to a large unenclosed common land; in the latter case the authority has to take powers to acquire the land, and there is provision for that in Clauses 8 and 9. I cannot see why the same procedure cannot be used in these very rare cases where a grid is put on enclosed land between a fence or a hedge.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. J. Grimston: Perhaps I can help the Minister a little. I believe that this difficulty arises from the fact that there are different kinds of commons in different parts of the country. I think this is a sensible proviso, because in the Home Counties there is a very large number of commons consisting of a strip of 20 or 30 yards on either side of the road. As long as the sole purpose of this proviso is to place a grid at either end of such commons, I would agree with the proposal, provided of course there was a gate alongside every grid.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Frank Soskice): May I explain why this proviso was inserted? We do often find cases, such as those mentioned by the hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. J. Grimston), where there are these small strips of common land, and this proviso is designed to enable a grid to be placed on


that land. The reason for it is because it is extremely difficult, as a matter of procedure, to acquire the land, and it is equally difficult to find anybody with whom one could enter into an agreement with regard to it. Under the Bill, if we want to put a cattle-grid there, we have either to acquire the land under Clause 8 or enter into an agreement under Clause 9.
When we come to deal with these strips of common land, we are faced with the problem that common land is land owned by the lord of the manor in respect of which the commoners have certain rights of common. If we do acquire the land it means not only obtaining it from the lord of the manor but also going through the procedure to put an end to all the rights of common possessed in respect of that land. To put an end to these rights is an extremely cumbrous and complicated process. We have to apply whole sections of the Land Clauses Act, 1845, and it takes a long time, and it is not easy to find out who are the persons whose rights have to be extinguished.
The object of the proviso is that, where we have a hedge separating a small strip of common land from a roadway where we want to be able to place a cattle-grid on common land, without having to go through all this procedure in circumstances in which it may not be worth while either to acquire the land or enter into an agreement under Clause 9—if that were possible, and even that is doubtful—we may take power to place a grid on that common land. That is the only reason, and we think that the proviso serves a useful purpose and is never likely to give rise to anything more in respect of common land rights. This proviso is desirable in order to deal with the type of case in which it really would be unreasonable to expect the highway authority to go through the long process of acquiring the right to place the grid on a small strip of common land.

Colonel Clarke: While appreciating the point of view expressed by the learned Solicitor-General, I think we must recognise that we are evading an obligation to commoners in this case. There is not only the difficulty in making arrangements with the commoners and so on, but I think I am right in saying that, where a

highway is widened and common land is taken, there is an obligation to provide an equal amount of common land for the use of the commoners. In this case, it is such a small portion of land that it does not matter very much, but I do not think that we should take this course without recognising that we are doing something that might be regarded by those interested in commons and commoners as an infringement of their rights. I recognise that it is extremely difficult to acquire the land, but that is not the only point, and we should remember that there are certain obligations contingent on acquisition.

The Solicitor-General: May I supplement what I was saying and make a suggestion which the Committee might think will meet the point? The position might be met by making the procedure in relation to common land subject to compliance with the Schedule; in other words, if a highway authority wishes to place a cattle-grid on common land, it shall not do so until it has gone through the procedure in the Schedule, given an opportunity for anybody concerned to make representations and also heard any objections which there may be to that course. I suggest that simply as a possible way round the difficulty, but it would need a further Amendment, because the Schedule is not made applicable to the operation of this proviso.
If the Committee thinks that this is a possible way out of the difficulty, we should like to consider it between now and the Report stage to find out whether, in fact, there is any difficulty in that kind of solution. I put the suggestion forward for consideration, and we will undertake, if it commends itself to the Committee, to consider it as a possible solution.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: We should be very happy to agree to any suggestion from the right hon. and learned Gentleman which would make this proviso more intelligible, and, if he will consider the application of the Schedule to common land, that will meet part of the case which has been put by my hon. Friend. I would only point out that it opens up the question, which many of us raised on Second Reading and to which I have already referred, of the application of the Schedule to the initiation of these cattle-grids.
Why we should apply the Schedule to people with common rights whose land is acquired and not also apply it to the owners of land in general—simply because the special situation which obtains regarding rights of objection by people to these common land roads does not obtain in the case of those who own land—I simply cannot understand. I hope, since the Solicitor-General is so friendly disposed as to listen to us, that he will consider the application of the Schedule to the common lands, and that he will also look at the second Amendment on the Order Paper, which would apply the Schedule to the initiation of grids in general.

Mr. Grimond: I understand that the reason for the proviso is concerned with the difficulty of acquiring common land, with which I entirely sympathise, and I understand that that difficulty exists in Scotland as well as in England and Wales. I should like to ask the learned Solicitor-General what procedure there is for acquiring common land other than this very complicated procedure which he has already outlined.

The Solicitor-General: The only land which can be used under the terms of the Bill is that specified in the first part of subsection (3), which relates to land which is acquired or in respect of which an agreement has been entered into.

Mr. Grimond: I quite agree, but, if it is desired to acquire a small piece of common land, must this cumbrous procedure be gone through in every case?

Mr. Hopkinson: We all know cases of roads across open moorland, from which they are separated by means of a bank or a hedge, and it may be that at such a point we may want to place a grid. There is no question of any fencing on either side of the road leading up to the grid. We shall have to acquire common land, and all the difficulties to which the learned Solicitor-General has referred will apply. These will be the ordinary cases, whereas the exceptional cases will be those of little strips. I suggest that it is illogical to have a proviso for a limited number of cases when a far wider class of case concerning commons and moors is not dealt with at all.

The Solicitor-General: We cannot operate the procedure for the purpose of

acquiring common land under Clause 8 without having to go through the whole procedure; but this proviso is designed to deal with the small strip of common land which divides a fence from a road, so that, if one wants to acquire a substantial strip of such land, one must go through the procedure set out in Clause 8.

Mr. Renton: It seems that in drafting the Clause the Government made a distinction between taking a tiny bit of common land and taking rather a lot of common land. They said, in effect, "If you take a tiny bit, you need not bother to give notice to anybody, even though you are infringing the rights of commoners which have always been regarded as sacred by this House, but, on the other hand, if you are taking a bigger piece, you had better go through the proper procedure."
We have had an example this afternoon of the great value of an intervention by a Law Officer in discussing a matter which, at first sight, does not appear to have a lot of law in it. It has been most valuable to have the illumination which the right hon. and learned Solicitor-General has thrown upon this problem, and I think the suggestion he has made, that the proviso we are now discussing should be made subject to the proper procedure envisaged in Clause 8, is a very admirable one. In fact, it is such a good suggestion that I do not think he will have any alternative but to comply with it himself.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Vane: I beg to move, in page 2, line 10, after "road," to insert:
or where the road passes through an existing gate in a fence dividing one unenclosed common from another unenclosed common.
That Amendment perhaps sounds a little complicated, but it is really very simple and solves the difficulty which was discussed in the last Amendment. If the Solicitor-General, whose last speech was entirely in favour of this Amendment, will nod and show that he will accept it I will not take up the time of the Committee any longer.

The Solicitor-General: We are prepared to accept it in principle.

Mr. Vane: That being so, I do not think I need say more than that, as far as


I can see it, when the Bill was originally drafted, it was assumed that the simplified procedure for taking a mere strip of waste land for the making of a by-pass would be enough where there is a road normally enclosed and with a gate across it. But in this country there are many open commons with cross fences. I should have thought that if the simplified procedure were justified where the road was fenced it was equally justified where an unenclosed road happened to pass a cross fence—perhaps marking one common from another. I would not have thought it necessary to put the burden on county councils to go through Clauses 8 and 9, even if some lawyers think it is.

The Solicitor-General: As I intimated earlier, we think there is a lot in the argument which the hon. Gentleman has advanced. We feel that there should be something to deal with the case where there is common land or waste land on each side of the road, but no wall or other boundary running along the side of it. As in a number of these cases, we would like to think over the drafting and over the full implication of the Amendment. However, as I intimated, in principle we are in agreement with the point of view advanced by the hon. Gentleman, and if he would be so good as to ask leave to withdraw his Amendment, we will undertake to meet the spirit of what he has in mind.

Mr. Vane: In view of that kindly conciliation on the part of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

4.45 p.m.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I beg to move, in page 2, line 28, to leave out from "way," to first "for," in line 29.
This is a small, though, some of us think, a very important point. The right hon. Gentleman will recollect that on Second Reading many of us suggested that grids ought occasionally, and where appropriate, to be put at the side of the road, and not in the path of the road itself. In this Amendment we are seeking to strike out words which would define the by-pass as meaning
a way, over land not comprised within the limits of the road. …

By striking out that definition, it allows of the by-pass being put upon the main road and the grid to one side, or vice versa.
Earlier in the Clause—lines 10 and 11 —it says:
The appropriate authority may place any part of a cattle-grid, or provide a by-pass, on any of that land …"—
that is, the strip of land to which we have just been referring. Those words indicate that in that part of the Bill the choice is open to us to put the grid to one side, or the by-pass to one side, so that there is already a half concession in the Bill. I want to secure from the Minister an undertaking that in all cases highway authorities will make the selection as between the grid being placed to one side, or the by-pass being placed to one side.
There are two important points to consider in suggesting that the grid should be put to the side of the road. The first is that it effectively slows up traffic. On Second Reading, the right hon. Gentleman talked about people speeding along the road and failing to close gates, and said that that was why grids were being put down. If on unclassified roads, with rough or gravel surfaces, the grid is put to one side, that would enforce a slow-up of traffic. The vehicles would have to negotiate a loop, and then get back upon the main road. Obviously, if traffic is slowed up, that saves the wear and tear of the gravel or metal, as the case may be. The other important point involved is the one to which I referred on Second Reading—the danger to animals which may be actually standing on the road concealed by a rise in the ground, or which are coming up at right, angles to one side of a hedge. There might be a high hedge opposite the grid, and the animals might be coming up in single file towards that grid. If the grid is towards the side of the slowed up vehicle, there would be less danger of damage to the animals and to the vehicle.
I have seen many grids provided by private owners on their lands where that is done. It saves expense, because the gate is left upon the road—it does not have to be moved to one side—and the grid is put to one side, thus effectively slowing up the traffic. I ask the Minister


to agree that these words, which define a by-pass as being
over land not comprised within the limits of the road,
should be deleted from the Bill.

Mr. Barnes: I regret I am unable to accept this Amendment. As I understand it, the noble Lord's proposal is that instead of having the grid on the road it should be off the road.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: In appropriate cases.

Mr. Barnes: An appropriate case is rather difficult to define. The whole purpose of the Bill is to facilitate traffic on the highways. This proposal would reverse the whole purpose for which the Bill was designed, and would certainly lead to substantial Amendments to the Bill because it conceives an entirely different way of treating these grids. I ask the noble Lord to consider this purely as an alternative and agree that we might meet his point by providing an alternative in certain circumstances. I should be prepared to look at that if it provides an additional facility. However, I could not accept at this stage the deletion of these words. It would lead to such alteration in subsequent Clauses of the Bill that it would delay the whole of our proceedings.
I suggest that the noble Lord should not now press his Amendment, because I could not possibly accept an Amendment if it led to subsequent alterations in the Bill. If his point can be met without any substantial diversion of the original purpose, I am ready to look at it in that way. I hope the noble Lord will be content to accept that suggestion. If it can be done without further Amendments and modifications of the Bill and will provide additional facilities, I will do my best to meet it, but if it represents modification of the Bill in its procedure then I regret that I would have to refuse.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: On the Minister's assurance, I would not seek to press the Amendment at this stage if he says that the effect of leaving out the words would be to lead to consequential alterations. The whole object of the Amendment is to make the siting of a grid on a by-pass permissive. On great thoroughfares they would be on the road

itself, but on unclassified roads they should be allowed to be on one side. They are on one side today in a great variety of private roads which are to be taken over and administered under the further provisions of this Measure. I hope, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman will look into it, and see whether he can produce the appropriate words or allow us to do so.

Mr. Renton: Where there is already a gate on the road, surely it would be right to leave the gate where it is, and make the grid just at the side of the gate. Is not that obvious? If the Minister does not accept that proposition he is not showing that abundant common sense we normally expect from him when there is no political dogma involved. Will it not add to the cost to take up the gate on a quiet road and move it to one side so as to form a by-pass? It would be far better to leave the gate there and make a small diversion. Is it not too obvious for words?

Mr. J. Grimston: I want to back the argument already put to the Minister and to add some new ones. He said the whole purpose of the Bill is to speed up traffic over the road. I submit it is not the whole purpose of the Bill at all, and that in certain cases it is very necessary to slow down traffic over the road. I agree with what was said by the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) on Second Reading. Where there are high hedges coming up to what, at the moment, is a gate and will be in future a gate and grid, it is necessary that traffic should move slowly. The only way to enforce that is to put the grid at the side of the road and force the traffic to go round it.

Mr. Barnes: That may not be a desirable situation. I do not rule it out altogether. That question of slowing down may have to be dealt with by signs and directions. Equally, it may be possible that if we divert motor traffic of that description we may promote accidents or increase the possibility of accidents. As I am advised, this Amendment would lead to subsequent Amendments, and it ought not to be pressed at the moment. It is in that spirit that I approach the Amendment.

Mr. Grimston: I accept that from the Minister, of course. As I understand it,


without alteration of the words in the Bill it would be impossible, in any circumstances, to put the grid at the side. There are many cases where, as my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton) said, the proper place to put a grid would not be in the road as it now exists but to one side or the other.

Mr. Barnes: Previously, hon. Members suggested something different. Now they are pressing me to consider the other side, and I readily do so.

Mr. Charles Williams: The Minister said that acceptance of this Amendment might mean a lot of other Amendments. He has not shown in any way why there should be other Amendments. Before this Amendment is withdrawn the Minister, in common fairness to my noble Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) should tell us where the other Amendments will come in. The whole argument put by my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton) is quite conclusive, that this Amendment would help in certain cases and improve the Bill. The fact that there may be other Amendments does not seem to me a reason why it should not be accepted.
I think that what the Minister really meant was that he had seen that this Amendment was a first-class one, that his Department had not been able to supply him with any good reason why it should not be accepted and he thought up the ingenious idea that this might affect later Amendments and take up time. He ought to accept the Amendment. If other Amendments have to come later, it is quite easy for his Department to deal with them. There is nothing whatever in his argument to show that the Amendment will do any harm in the world.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: In view of the Minister's assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2.—(REMOVAL OF CATTLE-GRIDS AND DISCONTINUANCE OF BY-PASSES.)

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I beg to move, in page 3, line 47, at the end, to insert:
Provided that the powers given by this subsection shall not be exercised until after complying with the provisions of the Schedule to this Act.

This Clause deals with the removal of grids after they are no longer required. We were told by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture on Second Reading that highway authorities were responsible bodies who ought to be able to carry out the provisions of the Bill without having their work hampered by the procedure of the Schedule, which might subject the work done on a grid or by-pass to the business of investigation, and report and decision by the Minister. To some extent, those words carry weight. It seems to us they carry weight on the instigation of a grid. Clearly, the Committee, the farming community and the highway authorities are united in wishing to see this Bill have a speedy passage, and as many grids provided as the straitened economic situation of the country will allow.
A very different situation arises, under Clause 2, where grids are removed if they are no longer required. The fact that highway authorities are responsible bodies and must be allowed to go ahead in order to do what everybody wants— that is, provide grids—reinforces the case for an appeal, lying ultimately to the Minister, if those highway authorities desire to go against the main purpose of the Bill and to remove grids when, in their view, they are no longer required.
5.0 p.m.
The Schedule rightly deals with various situations in which rights are taken away. In my opinion a new right is created, and should be included in the Schedule, by virtue of the fact that these grids will have been established for long periods and that farmers and landowners will feel that they have a right to expect them to remain. In three or four years' time the highway authority may say, "This grid is no longer required; Clause 2 permits us to get rid of it, and we can get rid of it without appeal." Nevertheless, by that time there will be long usage of the grid; farmers and landowners may like it very much and may want to keep it. They will think they have a right to do so. Looking at the Schedule, they think their right ought to be included among the rights already existing when changes and alterations take place.
I should like to hear from the right hon. Gentleman what kind of examples he can give to the Committee of grids


which would not longer be required. Can we imagine a case on an arterial road, or on an A, B or C Class road where, once provided, grids would no longer be necessary and would be taken out? Can he give us any example of a secondary road leading to and from farms, and passing farms, where grids would no longer be required unless, of course the character of the land was changed, unless a housing estate was suddenly to spring up on land which had previously been agricultural land? In that case, is the right hon. Gentleman so certain that no farmer would remain in the locality with a right of retaining the grid—and who would like to have his right upheld under the Schedule? We think that giving highway authorities statutory power to get rid of these grids altogether, without the right of appeal lying ultimately to the Minister, is wrong, and the purpose of this Amendment is to attach the Schedule to the power of the local authority to remove a grid.

Mr. Hay: I support the Amendment and I think that on ordinary logic, if nothing else, the right hon. Gentleman should accept it. My hon. Friend has explained in great detail and with the utmost clarity exactly why he feels that this type of provision relating to the removal of a grid should be on similar lines to the provisions which apply when a grid is put in place. In cases like this, where we are laying down a definite procedure for the institution of grids of this kind, it is most important that we should also set out a clear procedure for their removal. As the Bill stands, no such indication is given at all—no procedure is laid down. This Amendment does something at least to cure that situation and I regard it as something which, in logic, the right hon. Gentleman might easily accept. I hope he will give a very favourable reply.

Mr. Barnes: I find these arguments particularly unconvincing. In the first instance, if a highway authority intends to establish a grid it means that they have been convinced by local opinion of the local need for the grid. It would be carrying the provisions of the Bill too far to suggest that any local authority, having first of all admitted the need for a cattle-grid and having gone to the expense of making all the necessary provisions—by-passes and ways round—would then, in

some irresponsible way, remove the grid contrary to the needs of the locality. What is the basis——

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Perhaps I may answer that point. It may easily be that a long time would elapse before they eventually thought it necessary to remove the grid. I should have thought that some procedure should be laid down in the Bill by which that could be done, if at any time it became necessary—for example, if the land was no longer in agricultural use but had been built up over the course of a number of years. That is the point I was making.

Mr. Barnes: That is the very reason why I do not want to accept the Amendment. If the character of the land changed, if there was no need for the grid and if the highway authority came to the conclusion that its purpose no longer existed, why should the highway authority be put to the expense and trouble of advertisements, inquiries, objections and appeals to the Minister when all they are doing is restoring the road and restoring to the users their original rights?
When we are infringing the rights of the public or of individuals, as the case may be, it is understandable that we should take precautions; but in this case, if a local authority decides that because of the changed character of the land there is no need for the cattle to pass over that spot and that the road should be restored to the normal highway conditions, then they are restoring the original purpose of the road. I see no reason, in that case, to put the local authorities to all this trouble and I suggest that, on reflection, it will be seen that this Amendment is unnecessary.

Mr. Nugent: With respect, I suggest that there is a marginal case which the Minister might consider and in which there is less use of the common land than was formerly the case. A time might come when it was necessary to renew the cattle-grid and the local authority might then say, "It is not used as much as it was and we might close it down." At the same time, some local farmers might still have a few beasts on the common and they would wish to keep the grid in place. In a marginal case like that, especially where the local authority was faced with new expenditure, it might


be desirable, in order to protect local use, to introduce this procedure into the Schedule. I hope the Minister will see that there is some reason in what he is being requested to do and will be prepared to consider the Amendment.

Mr. Barnes: The short answer to that is that it would probably be more costly to remove the grid and restore the road than to maintain the grid in place.

Mr. Nugent: I doubt it.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: The Minister is singularly unhelpful this afternoon. Would he kindly look at the Schedule, subsection (d), line 15? The Schedule applies to those cases where it is deemed to be
unnecessary that a by-pass should continue to be maintained for use in connection with a cattle-grid which has not been removed.
What is envisaged is a case where the highway authorities will think that, although a cattle-grid is to remain, there is no longer need for a by-pass, and where it is presumed that local landowners and local farmers will object, because they still want to drive their beasts through a gate instead of over the cattle-grid. In those cases they are allowed to take their objections, through the elaborate procedure envisaged in the Schedule, to the Minister.
Is not the removal of a grid, to which they might have the same sort of objection—namely, that they want to prevent their beasts from straying—on all fours with that? I should have thought there was very little between the two cases. Under subsection (d) the right to have a gate alongside a cattle-grid—where the grid is to remain—is being taken away. Then we get the case we are putting forward, in which the local authority decides to remove the cattle-grid altogether, which may affect the rights of cattle owners and farmers.

Mr. Heathcoat Amory: I should like to ask the Minister whether he thinks his view is equally applicable in the case of a grid to which other interests may have made some financial contribution. Does he think that in that case a local authority should have the right to decide arbitrarily by itself whether that grid is no longer required, and, if it thinks it is no longer required, to abolish it without consultation?

Mr. Barnes: That is certainly a new point. I must confess that I did not, in considering this matter, examine that particular aspect of it. Later on in the Bill we hope to provide opportunities for persons to contribute. I will certainly look at that point. However, I do not think it alters for a moment the major matter we are considering.

Mr. C. Williams: I am rather struck by this apparently terrific desire on the part of the Minister to make it as easy as possible to remove grids. I thought the object of this Bill was to make grids and to keep them and to develop them. Yet here for the first time we have terrific enthusiasm shown by the Government—I say for the first time, because the Government have not shown much enthusiasm for this Bill—to destroy grids.
Apparently, the right hon. Gentleman is very relucant to let those whose interest it is that grids should continue in their places to have anything to do with them, or, at any rate, to know what is likely to happen about them. This is an inadequate reason for the withdrawal of the Amendment, which clearly gives a very considerable amount of protection to the people with cattle in any district. If we really want that protection to remain we ought to accept the Amendment, and if the Government do not accept the Amendment then they cast suspicion on themselves that they are just putting up cattle-grids for the purpose of taking them down again. That would be quite in keeping with the Government's methods of procedure in other respects and in the ordinary matters of life.
However, I do not want that suspicion cast upon a particular Minister at this moment. I ask the Minister, as he has, quite clearly, become seized of many of the points we have raised on this side of the Committee, whether he would not think it better to accept this Amendment. It is clearly not going to do any fundamental harm to the Bill. Then further consideration could be given to the matter before the Bill is passed. If it were found that some difficulty arose because of the acceptance of the Amendment—I do not think it will— another Amendment could be made later.
My noble Friend has put the position so admirably that there can be no good


reason for not accepting the Amendment. If it is accepted now, it can be gone into by the Department, and the right hon. Gentleman will be in a comparatively easy position. We do not want these grids taken away simply because some local authority may think it advisable at some time. Really, once one puts in a capital investment of this kind —which is really what this is—one should not allow it to be taken away and destroyed, unless that is absolutely essential. For that reason I do hope that this Amendment will be accepted by the Committee.

Brigadier Peto: Does the right hon. Gentleman or does he not envisage removing grids when they become redundant or cease to be of use? If he does envisage removing grids at any time in the far distant future, does he envisage putting back a road in the exact state in which it was when the grid was first installed? From the right hon. Gentleman's answer to my noble Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) I gathered that that is what he foresaw. I should rather like to know, because to some extent it affects some Amendments we have down later on the Paper.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Barnes: We have largely left these matters to the common sense of the local authorities. I made a general statement earlier that in a Bill of this description, dealing with people and local needs, I think there should be every opportunity to avoid undue interference from any central departmental machinery. On the question of the installation of cattle-grids and the removal of cattle-grids, surely we can rely on the knowledge and common sense of the people locally. I cannot envisage every circumstance that will arise and how every highway authority will deal with any particular item of restoration.
The general attitude adopted on this is that if they do decide to remove grids they are restoring the original rights; they are not interfering with the rights of persons; and it is not necessary, therefore, to put them through all this procedure. The question of the interests of those who contribute towards the cost is a new one, and I suppose we could deal with that in some form when any agreement is entered into. However, I will undertake to look into that particular aspect of the matter.

Mr. Hay: The right hon. Gentleman says he thinks it should be left to the common sense of the local authorities concerned. With respect, I feel he has entirely missed the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Nugent). There may easily be circumstances in which a local authority in its wisdom may say, "It is time to remove that grid because it is not really necessary." But is the local authority to be the sole judge whether the grid is still necessary? There should be some procedure, some channel, open to those who wish to object to the removal of the grid; and that, as I understand it, is the sole purpose of the Amendment.
I have found the attitude of the Minister on this Amendment extremely disappointing. We all know how much it would naturally appeal to the sense of tidiness which naturally belongs to one occupying the right hon. Gentleman's office in the Government. I hope he will think again about the matter, and I hope that the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) will be accepted, that the Amendment should be accepted while the matter is further and yet more deeply reconsidered, and at a later stage some words different from these but achieving the same result will be written into the Bill if necessary.

Mr. C. Williams: I deeply regret that the right hon. Gentleman did not answer my point. I asked him whether in the circumstances he could not let the Amendment be accepted and then see if it was likely really to do any harm. I am sure it will do only good. I do not wish to say that the local authorities will be good or bad; I think the Minister is perfectly right to leave these things largely to men of local judgment. However, it does unfortunately sometimes happen that the people in a place will elect a Socialist local authority. If there is ordinary sound common sense, as the Minister says, then everything is all right. I am only giving an illustration of how in the localities things can go wrong which are not necessarily foreseen here when we pass a Bill.
I really think the Minister might meet the appeal from this side of the Committee, because we have put it with very great moderation and friendliness. In the circumstances—he obviously no


longer thinks the rejection of the Amendment is necessary—he might now accept it, because everyone in the Committee, certainly the people on the other side, has been completely convinced by my hon. Friends and their arguments. Or else let us have a Division.

Amendment negatived.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3.—(REPAIR OF CATTLE-GRIDS AND BY-PASSES IN ENGLAND.)

Mr. Hay: I beg to move, in page 5, line 7, at the end, to insert:
(4) Notwithstanding any rule of law, the appropriate authority shall be liable to pay damages to any person who suffers injury, loss or damage, whether through the misfeasance or nonfeasance of the appropriate authority by reason of the failure of the appropriate authority to put or keep in repair a cattle-grid or by-pass provided in pursuance of this Act.
The purpose of the Amendment is to ensure that the proper authority shall be made liable for any injury, loss or damage, however it may be caused, which may be suffered by any individual as a result of the cattle-grids we are proposing to place on the highways. This is the sort of problem which has been faced by Parliament on many occasions before, and as a result the legal position is in a somewhat complicated and extremely unsatisfactory state.
I begin by reminding the Committee of the legal distinction—and difference— between the two words which are mentioned in the Amendment, namely. "misfeasance" and "nonfeasance." As hon. Members will, no doubt, recollect, highway authorities are not liable if they fail to keep highways in repair. If as a result of their negligence in that respect, potholes, for instance, appear in the highway, it might easily happen that a person would be injured as a result, but the courts have laid it down for many years that in those circumstances a person cannot recover any damages. The converse of the position is, that if any time a highway authority does some particular work to a road, and it leaves it in such a bad manner that some person is injured, as for example, if a trench is dug in the road and in filling it up the road is not surfaced properly and someone is injured, the injured

person can recover damages because of the negligence which has caused the accident, and, therefore, the damage.
Turning to the Bill after those preparatory remarks, I would point out—it was pointed out during Second Reading— that Clause 3 is the one which deals with the position of cattle-grids and by-passes in England and their repair. Clause 4 deals with the repair of cattle-grids and by-passes in Scotland. In Scotland they are more fortunate than we unfortunate English people in this case. Clause 4 establishes that whatever the cause of the damage or liability, whether due to misfeasance or nonfeasance the appropriate authority is liable, but for England there is not a word about liability at all.
The purpose of this Amendment is to give some measure of justice for England, and I hope I may have the support of hon. Members like the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) and others from Scotland in order to give justice to England on this issue. When the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture was winding up the Debate on the Second Reading, he set his face strongly against any proposed change of this kind, and said that this was a very inappropriate moment to introduce such a far-reaching change. That is to some extent true, but I would remind the Committee that what we are doing is putting something entirely new on the highways.
There are many circumstances which might come to mind where people might be injured as a result of the surface of the road around a cattle-grid becoming worn out. Cyclists might easily meet with a serious accident, and the purpose of the Amendment is to make sure that where an accident occurs and some person is injured or anything damaged, then there shall be a right of recovery of damages from the appropriate authority, no matter whether it be the result of the misfeasance of the appropriate authority or the nonfeasance.
The Solicitor-General might very well say that this opens up a very wide question. To that I have no objection. I feel this is a change in the law which on general grounds is long overdue. Here is an opportunity for this Committee in a small but nevertheless important Bill to effect some measure of change for the betterment of people using the roads.

The Solicitor-General: As the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Hay) said, this Amendment cannot be considered in isolation. There is, as he has reminded the Committee, a very general principle in our law that authorities are not liable in respect of nonfeasance as distinct from misfeasance. This being such a principle of wide application, I feel that the Committee and the hon. Gentleman himself would accept the principle that it should not be lightly disregarded, and that the Committee in investigating it should see that the general current of the law was not reversed in that regard. In the matter of cattle-grids we have carefully thought over the position since the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture addressed the House on Second Reading of this Bill on that point. In his speech he said that he did not feel that this Bill was really one in which to make a departure from that general principle.
Since then we have considered whether it would be right, without in any way encroaching upon the general principle, to make some exception in the case of cattle-grids. We are prepared in principle to accept this view. We think it is possible to distinguish between cattle-grids, the actual structure which the highway authority puts into the road and causes to become part of the road surface, and the rest of the road surface itself, though it would not be proper in this Bill, as I have already said, to depart in any serious degree from the general principle as to the law of misfeasance.
If the hon. Gentleman will be so good as to withdraw his Amendment we will introduce an Amendment providing that so far as cattle-grids are concerned, but not the adjoining road surface and not the road surface of by passes, the liability of the highway authority should not be excluded by reference to the doctrine of nonfeasance. In other words, if a highway authority builds a cattle-grid and then through negligence fails to keep it in proper repair, with the result that it becomes a serious danger and on some occasion or other causes an accident, then we think the law should be amended so that liability attaches in those circumstances.
I should like to make it perfectly clear —and I feel the hon. Gentleman who moved this Amendment would agree

with me in this because he has by implication agreed that one could not accept the reverse in general in referring to nonfeasance—that we think it is possible to distinguish this case from the ordinary case which is within the general purview of nonfeasance. Possibly he has had the opportunity of considering the case of Skelton against the Epsom and Ewell Urban District Council. That case, as the law already stands, did emphasise a distinction between the surface of the road itself and something in the nature of a structure which is worked into the surface of the road and is allowed to get into such disrepair that it becomes a nuisance to those who use the road.
It is because we think that we can draw such a distinction and that we shall not encroach too much on the general principle if we amend this Bill, that we are prepared to meet the hon. Gentleman. We think that a cattle-grid is comparable to that kind of structure, to which, under the existing law, liability attaches in the event of the structure being allowed to become a nuisance owing to disrepair.
I want to make clear the length to which we are prepared to go. I hope the hon. Gentleman will agree with me that the Amendment should apply only to a cattle-grid itself and to the works, but not to the road surface. The ordinary law should remain applicable to the road surface and also to the surface of the by-pass. I think that goes most of the way which the hon. Gentleman wished to go by his Amendment. He does, by his Amendment, go a little further, because he actually includes the surface of the by-pass itself, but he ought to bear in mind the general principle and the caution that one should adopt in reversing any general principle, which is as deeply embedded in our law as is the principle of road liability.
I feel that we should stop there, and that we should limit the Amendment to what I might call the structure of the cattle-grid itself and the works which are referred to in Clause 1. I hope that he will think that is a reasonable way of meeting the situation, and, if he does so, that he will ask leave to withdraw the Amendment upon the understanding that the Government are prepared to put down an Amendment in the sense I have indicated for the purpose of the Report stage.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Hay: Perhaps the Solicitor-General would deal with two further points. Would he be prepared, since he has been so generous on this matter generally, to accept my Amendment if the words "or by-pass" were deleted, because I think that the Amendment as it would then stand would fulfil exactly that purpose. I do not ask him to give a direct reply, but perhaps he would consider that point in introducing an Amendment at a later stage. It has been said that so far as the Government are concerned any question of nonfeasance or misfeasance could only be applicable to the structure of the work. With that I agree, and that was the purpose of the Amendment.
There is a further question, because it seems to me, in the example I gave, that the road surface which surrounds the grid itself may become worn down. What would be the position then? Unless that point is borne in mind in drafting a future Amendment, it may lead to many complicated questions as to whether it was the fault of the structure, which may have risen slightly, or the fault of the road, which may have fallen slightly. I mention these points so that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will have an opportunity of considering them later.

Sir A. Hudson: I am certain that the statement of the right hon. and learned Gentleman has given great satisfaction to those interested in this Bill because I know from communications which I have had from the farming community and others that they have been a little anxious if cattle-grids become, as we hope they will, fairly common, as to what would be the legal effect if an Amendment such as this were not put in the Bill. I was not quite clear whether it was the intention of the Solicitor-General to put down an Amendment himself. We could then look at it, and perhaps some of us could add our names to it. That might save trouble, and if that is his intention, I am sure that it will be the best thing to do.

Mr. Grimond: I am sure that the Solicitor-General intends to do ample justice, but there is a question that I should like to ask, particularly in regard to Clause 4. In the question of nonfeasance there must be an element of

non-repair. Supposing animals stray on to a grid, in respect of which there is no question of nonfeasance, because it is badly sited. Does Clause 4 allow a claim against the authority or not?

The Chairman (Major Milner): We will deal with Clause 4 when we arrive at it.

Mr. Grimond: I think that the point also arises on Clause 3—the question of whether any liability would arise in a case where not even nonfeasance has arisen.

Mr. Harmer Nicholls: When the Solicitor-General gives us the Amendment which he has promised, could he define a cattle-grid for the purpose of his Amendment to cover all land one yard at least on either side of the structure itself? I do not think that we ought to ignore the technical aspect of this, and one yard on either side of the structure would act in the nature of the foundations of the grid itself. If a grid could be defined as a structure and include one yard on either side at each end that might meet the point which is made in the Amendment.

Mr. Amory: I think that what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said has done much to clarify the position. I am interested in the matter of nonfeasance and misfeasance because I believe the liability of local authorities for nonfeasance and misfeasance was finally settled in the year 1788 in a case known as Russell v. Men of Devon. This afternoon, the hon. and gallant Member for Devon, North (Brigadier Peto), the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) and myself have the proud privilege of representing that stalwart section of the community. We are as resolved as our predecessors were to do what we can in the defence of the rights of individual citizens of that county and the local authority which so well serves their interests.

Mr. L. M. Lever: I am sure that the feelings expressed by the Solicitor-General will be universally accepted by the House. This question of misfeasance and nonfeasance has been one which has given lawyers who have been called upon to advise very great heart-searching in regard to the public generally, in any case in which


Citizens unfortunately have been unable to claim through misfeasance of their local authority.
The Solicitor-General has made a very generous gesture in this matter because were he to accept the principle that the appropriate authority should be liable for misfeasance and nonfeasance on a similar basis, it would mean that authorities, particularly at a time when authorities are taking steps to put their roads in a proper state of repair in the post-war conditions, would be in grave difficulty and subject to being sued for claims on divers counts.
The gesture of the Solicitor-General will help to deal with what might be a difficulty in regard to cattle-grids. As this is an Act dealing with cattle-grids alone, I think that what he said about cattle-grids and the Amendment he may draft, giving effect to the question of cattle-grids in relation to liability may be accepted by the House today, and the whole question of misfeasance and nonfeasance generally left to an appropriate later date.
If this matter were left as a question of the surface in relation to the cattle-grids, it might mean that citizens who were injured in the industrial areas might be dealt with on one basis and citizens injured in the areas where there were cattle-grids might have the benefit of another interpretation of the law. In those circumstances, we want to get the law uniform for the citizens who live in the industrial areas and those who live in the country areas where these cattle-grids are, and the Solicitor-General has done well indeed to take the matter a step further as he has done in relation to the subject under discussion today.

The Solicitor-General: My hon. Friend the Member for Ardwick (Mr. L. M. Lever) has said that I showed a very generous gesture. It was very nice of him to say so, and I hope that he will not mind my saying that I am not sure that that is altogether the right term, because in dealing with a problem of this sort one has two separate sides to consider, and one cannot be generous to one side at the expense of the other.
As one hon. Gentleman opposite reminded the Committee, this doctrine has stood since 1788 since the Russell v. Men of Devon case, and the whole liability of local authorities is based upon that doctrine. Therefore, one has to be

extremely chary of invading that doctrine because it very largely affects the position of all local authorities in these matters. It was for that reason that I was very careful to say that I was only going to a particular point because I thought it should be distinguished from the general run of cases which the doctrine affects. I say that because the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Hay) when he spoke again, and one of his hon. Friends, also raised the question of the adjoining land. Frankly, I rather hesitate to go as far as that.
The question immediately arises, if we undertake to repair the grid, as to the measure of the undertaking in regard to the few inches, or the yard as the hon. Member has suggested, on each side of it. That immediately becomes a rather important matter of principle. It is for that reason we must proceed very warily to see what is the measure of liability, the new measure of liability, being imposed on local authorities. I should hesitate to go any further than I have said. I should hesitate to travel onto the road surface adjoining the grid, or to go outside the area the grid itself covers.
I hope the Committee will agree that that is as far as I can safely go. The hon. Member for Henley asked whether I would accept the Amendment with the omission of the words "or by-pass." Having had five years close contact with Parliamentary Counsel, that is a thing I should hesitate to do, because all sorts of difficulties arise when one begins to consider drafting. I do not think I can undertake to accept his drafting. Drafting will have to be carefully considered and the problem properly investigated from all angles.
I hope the Committee will agree that in doing what I think is right, namely, to see that a person who is injured because he gets trapped in a worn grid that has been allowed to fall out of repair, so much so as to become a source of danger and nuisance, should have the right to recover damage for the injuries he has sustained, I cannot be expected to go any further.

Mr. Renton: I also welcome the conclusion the Solicitor-General has reached, but I must say I am rather surprised with the hesitancy of his approach to a cattle-grid. He has adopted a rather


frightened view, and his fears appear to arise from the fact that some modification has to be made in what he has described as the deep-rooted principles of the common law. Like all Members of this Committee, I have a great respect for the English common law, which has been described as the sublimated common sense of the centuries. On the other hand, we have found the reasons that have made that law sensible in the past, so long ago as 1788, not always make it sensible when we are legislating for an entirely new departure.
The deep-rooted principles must be considered in the light of the fact that a precisely opposite principle applies in Scotland, to which this Bill also refers. My surprise is that the Government have not given this matter of the conflict between English and Scottish ancient common law much more careful consideration than they have apparently done. I find it surprising that we should have to wait until today before the Solicitor-General has applied his mind to getting this ancient confusion cleared up. This is, after all, the most important Bill of the Session, and this is an important point in it. One would have thought that the Government would have given the matter closer attention.

5.45 p.m.

The Chairman: The hon. Member must really confine his remarks to the Amendment. And, if I may say so, when a Minister has replied more than once, and at some length, and given an undertaking to the apparent satisfaction of the Committee, it is not necessary to enter upon a wide dissertation on the common law.

Mr. Renton: I apologise if I have trespassed too far, but I was somewhat shocked that this matter had come to be discussed here at all.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Before my hon. Friend decides what he wishes to do in regard to this Amendment, may I ask the Solicitor-General to be specific about his undertaking? If this Amendment is withdrawn, does he undertake to introduce appropriate words of his own on the Report stage, or at a later stage when the Bill is considered in another place?

The Solicitor-General: I have no doubt that we shall be able to do it by the Report stage, but I hope that will not be considered an undertaking on my part, as it may have to be done later. I anticipate that it will be done by the Report stage, and the Amendment will go to the limits I have indicated.

Mr. Hay: I should like to express my appreciation to the Solicitor-General for the way he has dealt with this subject. As the hon. Member for Ardwick (Mr. L. M. Lever) has said, this is a question which sooner or later the House will have to consider. If the Solicitor-General will introduce an Amendment of his own, in regard to which, if I may say so, we shall be only too willing to help, I think the point can be dealt with and something constructive added to the Bill. In these circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir A. Hudson: I beg to move, in page 5, line 7, at the end, to insert:
(4) Nothing in this section shall prevent the appropriate authority from entering into an agreement with any person in whom responsibility for repair and liability for non-repair of a road not repairable by the inhabitants at large is vested as to the defraying by that person of a part, not exceeding one-third, of the expenses incurred by the appropriate authority in consequence of the provisions of this section.

The Chairman: I think it would be convenient if we also discussed the Amendment in identical terms, in page 5, line 13, and the new Clause—[Agreement for defraying costs in the case of unclassified roads].

Sir A. Hudson: I was about to make that suggestion. These Amendments and the Clause are among the most important we have to discuss, because they raise the whole question of who is to defray the costs for unclassified roads. I do not mean in this connection so much the Government as the appropriate authority, and, as we suggest, others who are interested. We were told by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture that unclassified roads are the sole responsibility of the local authorities named in Clause 1 (7), which lays down that the appropriate authority for any other road shall be one of three classes.
We had hoped that it might be possible for the central authority to help, because it is on these unclassified roads that the majority of the grids will be placed. I hope we will be able to hear from the Minister whether it has been possible, within the framework of the Bill, to give any financial assistance. What we are suggesting here is not quite that. We are assuming that the appropriate authority is one of the three classes to which I have just referred, but we also feel that it might be possible, or should be possible, for others interested in these private roads to make some contribution.
I am told that that is done by the Devon County Council, who I presume do it under a Private Bill. The reason we want it is that we wish to have as many of these grids as possibly undertaken, and we feel that the appropriate authority, who may not be very wealthy, would be a little more inclined to do something of the kind if it were able to obtain some of the cost from interested parties. We suggest that the amount should be one-third, that being I believe the proportion the Devon County Council have in their Private Bill.
This Clause deals with repairs, and in our proposed new Clause—which I wish could come first—we deal with the larger question of the provision, alteration or removal of a cattle-grid, by-pass or works. Of course, if what we propose here is accepted, no doubt when we come to the proposed new Clause, which deals with a rather larger question, that too will be accepted. I am encouraged, because on Second Reading the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture dealt at some length with the benefits which he hoped would result from this Bill, such as an increase of cattle and sheep grazing which he thought might be possible on land marginal to the road. He also said that the purpose of the Bill was to put legality beyond doubt, and in appropriate cases to provide Government assistance for the first time.
The object of these Amendments is simply to air the question of the unclassified roads, and to get a statement from the Minister—although I am afraid from what was said on Second Reading that he may not find it possible to do what we want—as to whether it may not be possible, first, for some form of Exchequer grant to be made for these roads,

and secondly, to allow appropriate local authorities, be they large or small, to be able to enter into partnership with those who are interested to defray the cost, not only for repairs but as we say later on, for the provision and even the removal of such grids.

Mr. Barnes: I shall deal first with the question of making a grant. I am afraid I cannot hold out any hope that on a Bill of this description the method of paying grants will be altered. A short time ago the percentage payment of grants to Classes I, II and III roads was raised considerably, and a very substantial additional mileage was taken into the trunk road system which the Central Government Fund meet entirely. On a Bill of this description, which has been introduced primarily to facilitate certain limited local agricultural interests, I am afraid I could not hold out any hope that we will review the grant system because of these innovations.
I am, however, prepared to accept the purpose of the Amendments and the proposed new Clause. We do not wish to be tied down to the figure of one-third; we should rather like freedom at the moment to draft the necessary Amendments to meet fully the purpose the hon. Gentleman has in mind. If that meets his purpose, we shall deal as comprehensively as we can with all the points that he raises in these two Amendments and in the proposed new Clause.

Sir A. Hudson: I thank the Minister for what he has said. I presume that he himself will draft the necessary wording later on. In view of that assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4.—(REPAIR OF CATTLE-GRIDS AND BY-PASSES IN SCOTLAND.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. McKie: On this Clause, which applies to Scotland, there are one or two points arising out of what the Minister said in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, North (Sir A. Hudson) on the last Amendment. I do not for one moment


wish to dissent from a view generally held by my hon. Friends with regard to what I might call sharing the cost. I am confining myself simply and solely to the Scottish position, although it is more or less all one question. I was glad to hear the Minister say that he would not tie himself to the figure of one-third. Although I agree with my hon. Friend when he says that it is in the interests of all parties that these grids should be provided, I think he will probably be inclined to agree with me that an interested party might not necessarily —certainly I can think of cases in Scotland—be the party who would be called upon to subscribe whatever proportion the Minister thought fit.

The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman now appears to be addressing his remarks to Clause 3, which we have passed.

Mr. McKie: With great respect, Major Milner, I am dealing with Clause 4.

The Chairman: I do not see how the question of the proportion arises on Clause 4.

Mr. McKie: With very great respect, apart from the question of the benefits which Scotland obtains and which England does not obtain with regard to possible damages, I think the Clause is identical with the Clause for England and Wales. That was the only thing which tempted me to rise to make these few remarks.
A party interested in the provision of grids might not necessarily be the party who would be called upon to pay this allocation of one-third, or one-fourth, or one-fifth, or whatever proportion the Minister, in his discretion, may see fit to impose, because in many cases on these unclassified roads the owner of the land is not the occupier of the land, and therefore would not be the party who would directly gain by these grids being set up. I have no wish to dissent from my hon. Friends, but I think that is a point worth making, and it should be kept carefully in mind. I think the Minister will agree with me that many of these persons who at the present time do not occupy their own land may not receive very gladly this extra imposition which will be laid upon them. I am glad to see behind me the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland

(Mr. Grimond), who I thought indicated by his expression that he was inclined to agree with me in this respect.
I repeat what was said about Clause 4 on Second Reading by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Perth (Colonel Gomme-Duncan). Do not let anyone imagine that the provision of these grids may not be accompanied by considerable risk of damage and of danger to human beings, and to cattle and sheep as well. My hon. and gallant Friend pointed out that it is quite possible—he did not say probable—that this kind of damage would occur on quite a large scale. We hope that it will not, but it is quite likely. The law of Scotland, of course, gives us much greater protection than the Bill as at present drafted, affords. Those were the only two points I wished to make, and I am very glad, Major Milner that you allowed me to proceed and to finish my remarks.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Grimond: I only want to mention a point which I raised in connection with Clause 3, and now raise in connection with Clause 4. Is it intended to put any additional liability on the authorities in Scotland? Would this Clause cover a case in which there is not even nonfeasance, for instance in which an animal rushes on to the grid or where the grid is badly sited? In such a case, would any liability fall upon the authorities?

Brigadier Peto: Can the hon. Gentleman say what nonfeasance is called in Scottish law?

Mr. Grimond: I do not think I know.

The Solicitor-General: I confess I am not an expert in the law of Scotland, but I understand that distinction between liability in respect of misfeasance and of non-liability in respect of nonfeasance is not made in the law of Scotland. In the case of a badly-sited grid constituting a danger it might fall within misfeasance in English law, but as distinction between the two is not made in Scottish law, I imagine that liability might arise in Scottish law, where a grid was sited so as to be a source of danger.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6.—(TRAFFIC SIGNS.)

Mr. Barnes: I beg to move, in page 6, line 14, to leave out "in England."
This Amendment and the two which follow it are drafting in character, and their purpose is to transfer all the Scottish matters to one part of the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 6, line 15, leave out from "mandamus," to end of line 17.

In line 22, at end, add:
and
(b) for the reference to enforcement on the application of the Minister by mandamus there shall be substituted a reference to enforcement by order of the Court of Session on an application by the Lord Advocate under section ninety-one of the Court of Session (Scotland) Act, 1868."—[Mr. Barnes.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7.—(SUPERSESSION OF GATES BY CATTLE-GRIDS.)

Brigadier Peto: I beg to move, in page 6, line 33, at the end, to insert:
Provided that such gate or gates shall on demand be replaced at any time after the cattle-grid is removed.
With your permission, Major Milner, I should like to include in my remarks the Amendment to line 36 which is in similar terms.

The Chairman: Certainly.

Brigadier Peto: In an earlier discussion, on Clause 2, I asked the Minister whether he envisaged the removal of a grid at any time and if so, whether the road and its surroundings would, as early as possible, be put back into the condition in which it stood when the cattle-grid was first installed. I gathered from his reply that it was his intention to see that that was done. On this side we quite understand the purpose of Clause 7. It is to prevent some malicious farmer, if any there be, from destroying the purpose of the Bill and refusing to take away a gate when a cattle-grid is installed. We also see the necessity for providing that any farmer whose gate is removed for the purpose of installing a cattle-grid shall have the right to replacement or to have the gate itself and the hangings, posts and surroundings put back as they were before the cattle-grid was put up.

Mr. Barnes: I shall be willing to accept the Amendment if the hon. Member will agree that we have the opportunity of re-wording it. I understand that "at any time" may not be acceptable drafting.

Brigadier Peto: On that assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman: I assume the remarks of the Minister apply also to the consequential Amendment?

Mr. Barnes: Yes, Major Milner.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Hay: I would ask the Minister to have a look at the wording of the Clause, because it is obscure. The wording is:
The appropriate authority shall on demand repay any expenses reasonably incurred in removing a gate
in compliance with the Clause, but it does not say on the demand of whom. That point ought to be cleared up. It is not at all certain what procedure is to be adopted, where there is a request for the repayment of removal expenses. Secondly, there is no definition or clear explanation of what is meant by "reasonable." I do not know whether that is the sort of thing which we are prepared to leave to the verdict of a court. I hope not. It is something on which we ought to have an explanation and I should be grateful if the Minister would explain what the wording means.

Mr. Barnes: I accept what the hon. Member says, and I will undertake to have the wording looked into between now and the Report stage.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8.—(ACQUISITION OF LAND.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Hay: I rise to refer to another matter, which is not the subject of any Amendment. When the Distribution of Industry Bill was going through the House, the Solicitor-General will remember that I discussed the question of


solicitors' costs in connection with the compulsory acquisition of land. The problem arises also in this Bill. When the Distribution of Industry Bill was before us, the Solicitor-General said that he would consider the matter again and that possibly something might be done in the future. Here again is an example. I hope that by saying a few words I can remind him that this question of scale costs being paid to people who are dispossessed of their land is urgent. Here is another example of compulsory power being given to local authorities or other bodies. It is an urgent matter which should be considered by the Government at an early stage. Something ought to be done about the matter soon.

The Solicitor-General: I remember very well the discussion we had upon the Distribution of Industry Bill and I recollect that I said that the matter should not be considered in isolation in relation to that Bill, but should be dealt with in a general Bill dealing with solicitors' costs, to put the matter on an equal basis for all Bills where the question arose. This is another Bill where the question arises. I take note of what the hon. Gentleman has said. If there is a general Bill it will deal with all cases and it will cover this case as well.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9.—(AGREEMENTS FOR USE OF LAND FOR CATTLE-GRIDS OR BY- PASSES.)

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I beg to move, in page 7, line 15, to leave out "or by-pass," and to insert "by-pass or traffic sign."
This is a small Amendment designed to secure that in agreements for the use of land for the provision of grids or by-passes the necessary and obvious traffic signs will also be taken care of. I cannot think that the Minister will boggle at this proposal. Some of the traffic signs may be fairly important structures which have to be read from a distance, and perhaps they are heavy in consequence. When the land is required and agreements are entered into it is surely right that these signs should be included in the other categories already dealt with.

The Solicitor-General: There are rather serious difficulties in the way of accepting the Amendment for the following reasons. In Clause 6 (1) the provisions of Section 48 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, are made applicable for the purpose of the provision of traffic signs. The provisions of that section confer upon the authority which is to put up the traffic signs all the necessary powers with regard to entering on land which it could require for the purpose of putting up the signs. The Amendment provides that those same powers can be taken by agreement. They are already possessed under Clause 6, and it would cause a great deal of confusion if the Bill provided that the same powers could be taken by agreement when they are already conferred irrespective of the existence of any agreement. That objection makes it impossible to accept the Amendment for it would leave the position extremely uncertain and it would be impossible to determine what was the intention of the Bill.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: The argument of the Solicitor-General is conclusive, and, as the Minister has been so gracious in promising further consideration on this Bill, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. J. Morrison: I beg to move, in page 7, line 23, at the end, to insert:
and by way of contribution towards expenditure incurred by the person making the agreement.
The Amendment is designed to cover possible legal charges which may fall on someone in the event of some little disagreement in regard to the acquisition of land. It is a small matter, and I hope that the Minister will be able to accept it.

Mr. Barnes: I have not had time to go into this point. If the hon. Member will withdraw his Amendment, I will undertake to examine it between now and the Report stage and see to what extent it can be met.

Mr. Morrison: In view of what the right hon. Gentleman says, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, in page 7, line 25, after "England," to insert "or Wales."—[Mr. Barnes.]

Mr. Watkins: I have sat very silently all the afternoon, but the Committee will recall that on Second Reading I said that I should be very vigilant during the Committee stage. I am very grateful for what the Solicitor-General has said about responsibility for injury in regard to grids and particularly the publicity with regard to the girl who twisted an ankle. Welsh Members of Parliament are very grateful to the Minister of Transport for breaking the ice after long drawn out controversy and bringing Wales into Bills. I hope that the Solicitor-General will make it his business to see that when Bills come before the House of Commons "Wales" will be next to "England" so that it will not be necessary for my colleagues and I to put down Amendments. We welcome this great Amendment very much.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Bowen: I support the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Watkins). I hope that the fact that the Amendment which was originally in his name and now bears the name of the Minister himself indicates a change of heart in the proper quarter. The fact that the expression "England" has been used in statutes for many years so as to include Wales has been a cause of considerable annoyance and irritation to the people in the Principality. As far back as 1515 the Legislature chose to include in an Act the phrase "England includes Wales," and this has been repeated during the present Parliament. I have been tempted to put down an Amendment to insert the words "Wales shall include England" which would be equally logical. To add insult to injury, in 1747 the phrase——

The Chairman: We are in 1950 now and, with respect, the hon. Gentleman's wishes appear to have been fully met by the Government, and that being so it should not be necessary for him to proceed further.

Mr. Bowen: If I may crave your indulgence for a moment, Major Milner, the use of expressions such as "England includes Wales" and "England includes Wales and Berwick-on-Tweed" in the past was not only a cause of irritation but

was symbolical of the attitude of Whitehall towards Wales. I hope that the fact that the Minister has seen fit to put his name to the Amendment indicates that in future Whitehall and the Ministries of the Crown as a whole will recognise in legislation that Wales is a nation entitled to separate treatment in relation to her own problems.

Mr. Barnes: I put the Amendment down for the purpose of facilitating the business of the Committee. I did not realise that I was providing such a triumphant victory for Wales. The Amendment has been brought forward in order to meet the comment of my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Watkins) on Second Reading, and I hope that the Committee will now approve the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Consequential Amendments made.

Mr. Barnes: I beg to move, in page 7, line 42, to leave out "or county borough," and to insert "borough or county district."
This is a procedural Amendment. I understand that this meets the more usual practice today.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: It looks to me as if by some inadvertance or failure to specify which county is the one referred to in line 42 "a county council" is being effectively excluded, which cannot be the purpose of the right hon. Gentleman. I do not ask him to disentangle the matter now but perhaps he would look at it and see if the form of his Amendment is correct or if a change should be made on the Report stage.

Mr. Ronton: My noble Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) has made a point of substance to which the Solicitor-General might give attention. A further point is that the Minister, in moving the Amendment and, presumably, in order to justify it, described it as a "procedural Amendment." I am not quite sure what that meant, but in any event the Amendment alters the original meaning of the Clause. As originally moved, the Clause referred only to "a county council" or "a county borough council," whatever that may mean, and the apparent intention of the Amendment, if rather more sense can be


driven into it than it bears, is to extend the effect of Clause 9 (5) to district councils, which, I believe, are sometimes technically referred to as "county district councils." If that is intended, well and good, but it would be useful if this point could be cleared up.

Sir T. Dugdale: Are we to take it that is right?

Mr. Barnes: As far as I can see the Amendment would make it read intelligently.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: We could settle it if we knew whether the right hon. Gentleman wanted to register these agreements with the county councils or not. If he does not, perhaps he will tell us why? If he does, the words proposed to be left out effectively prevent that.

Mr. Barnes: We register the agreements in the register of local land charges of county registers at the present moment. That is the purpose of this Amendment. As I understand it, this is the normal practice, but if there is any doubt about it in the mind of the noble Lord, I will certainly look into it more closely between now and the Report stage to see if there is any defect in this Amendment.

Mr. Hay: I think the right hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension about this and perhaps he has been wrongly advised on the point. Local land charges are registerable either with county councils or with county borough councils, and only in rare cases are they registered with rural district councils. The circumstances under which the Amendment is put forward are to clear up a procedural point. May I refer to the actual wording of the subsection if we insert the Amendment? It will read like this—
it shall be registered in the prescribed manner in the register of local land charges by the proper officer of any county borough or county district council in whose area the land …
I do not think that is what the right hon. Gentleman intended—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I believe my noble Friend was right when he said that the county council is completely omitted here, and I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman looks at it again and possibly leaves the matter over until Report stage.

Sir A. Hudson: Is it not correct that there are three people as the subsection is amended? It leaves out the county borough but leaves in the county, the borough and the county district.

Mr. Hay: No, it is the county borough.

Mr. Barnes: I think my best plan is to leave this at the moment and to undertake to look at it between now and Report stage. Therefore I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: In page 8, line 21, at the end, to insert:
, but with the substitution for the reference to the Forestry Commissioners of a reference to the appropriate authority."—[Mr. Barnes.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10.—(REGULATIONS AS TO CON- STRUCTION OF CATTLE-GRIDS, ETC.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. J. Grimston: I do not want to repeat all the factual criticisms that were made on Second Reading of the actual construction of the grids which will be covered by regulations under this Clause. Since the date of the Second Reading the Minister has placed a model of a grid in the Members' cafeteria. I am sorry to tell him that it is subject to almost all the mistakes in grid construction that could possibly be made, so I hope he will look at that model and have with him a copy of the Second Reading Debate.
For example, there is no traffic sign on either side of the grid. There is no traffic sign on the vertical fence between the grid and the by-pass gate. There is a black stone wall on the inner side of the grid which would be extremely dangerous at night. The grid is much too deep. It is either too wide or too narrow, depending for which purpose it is wanted. The bars are much too far apart—there are some excellent model cows there and one has only to stand them on the grid and they fall straight into it.
Since the Second Reading I have been measuring the spaces between the bars of grids, and I can tell the Minister that 3¼ inches is the maximum. Anything more than that and a beast will get its


feet down and almost certainly break its leg. Again, the bars are welded together. Sooner or later they will get bent. They must be removable. A beast will get down there, and cannot be got out unless there is a relatively quick way of taking the bar away at the end. There is a steel manhole cover projecting into the by-pass, which is dangerous. One has only to displace the manhole cover and any vehicle using the by-pass will go down into it. I cannot think of more, but those criticisms are enough and they were all made during the Second Reading Debate.
In addition, I hope the regulations will provide for varying kinds of grid. The Minister seems to have photographed the experimental grids put down by the Cumberland County Council. He said there were only 180 in this country, but there are thousands in the Empire. Do not let the Minister condemn us to adopt the experimental standard of the Cumberland County Council and say that this cannot be improved. Also, I hope the Minister will not make the excuse that the model was delivered before the Second Reading. I took the trouble to ring up the model makers this afternoon and they told me they had the model five days after the Second Reading, so many of the improvements could have been incorporated in it.

Mr. Barnes: It is quite clear that my Department has consulted the wrong expert on this matter. When I started to consider these cattle-grids for the purpose of helping the agricultural interests, I was assured it was a simple and straightforward process. As I have gone along I have begun to realise that it is one of the most complicated problems on the highways of this country I have ever had to deal with. However, I can assure the hon. Member that before the grids are installed there will be a much more thorough investigation than has taken place in the production of the model.

Sir T. Dugdale: The secret of this business is that the bars must be the right distance apart. If they are, no animal will attempt to go on them and there are no accidents, but if they are wrong, there will be any number of accidents, which will be costly to the local authorities because a lot of animals would break

their legs. We are grateful to hear that the Minister will look into this point again.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11.—(DELEGATION TO LOCAL AUTHORITIES OF FUNCTIONS OF MINISTER.)

Amendment made: In line 43, after "under," to insert "the foregoing provisions of."—[Mr. Barnes.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 12.—(FINANCIAL PROVISIONS.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Renton: I hope that we may have some explanation of the Clause. I have been puzzled by it and so have hon. Friends with whom I have discussed the matter privately. No very large expenditure from public funds is contemplated as a result of the Bill, and the last paragraph of the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum states that the total costs
are not expected to exceed £10,000 a year.
It seems, therefore, rather as though the Clause makes heavy weather from the financial viewpoint.
As one who tries in a humble way to follow what goes on in the House of Commons in the financial machinery of Government, and who tries not to take it all for granted, I find it very difficult to understand the Clause. We find, first, that it refers to the Development and Road Improvement Funds Act, 1909, which enables the Minister to make grants to highway authorities. Section 8 of that Act, it is stated,
shall have effect as if references to a highway authority included references to any appropriate authority"—
that means presumably, although I should be glad of enlightenment, an authority which is given power under the Bill—"

Mr. Barnes: Mr. Barnes indicated assent.

Mr. Renton: and as if the exercise of powers conferred by this Act were one of the matters in respect of which the Minister may make advances under …
Section 8 of the 1909 Act.


That is reasonably clear now that the Minister has indicated his assent to my query. What puzzles me, however, is what follows. Subsection (3) states:
There shall be defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament—

(a) any increase attributable to the provisions of this Act in the sums payable out of the Road Fund."

That, also, is clear, and would follow naturally from subsection (1). What is most puzzling is that in addition, apparently, it will be possible for money to be found out of the sums provided by Parliament under the Local Government Act, 1948. No doubt there is a reason for this, but on the face of it, it seems unnecessarily cumbrous to have to take such a small sum of money out of two separate funds which are provided by Parliament when it might fairly be assumed that it would all come out of the Road Fund.

Mr. Barnes: I do not quite understand the point which the hon. Member is making. There is nothing complicated about this. Subsection (3, a) deals with any payments out of the Road Fund— that is a Ministry of Transport payment. Subsection (3, b), which refers to Part I or Part II of the Local Government Act, 1948, covers, and is necessary for, any assistance which local authorities may receive in the form of Exchequer equalisation grant. It appears to be quite straightforward, therefore, that if any expenditure on cattle-grids and by-passes, the acquisition of land and matters of that kind, is likely to fall on one or other of these funds, provision should be made in the Financial Resolution and in the Financial Clauses.

Mr. Renton: If I may be permitted, Major Milner, I should say that the Road Fund, as we all know, exists for the improvement of roads. The Bill is being introduced for the improvement of roads. The Bill requires the expenditure of only a very small sum of money in relation to our total Budget. Would it not, therefore, be much more simple from the administrative point of view to have one fund operating in respect of the Bill instead of two?

Mr. Barnes: Mr. Barnes indicated dissent.

Sir A. Hudson: Subsection (1) uses the words

shall have effect as if references to a highway authority included references to any appropriate authority. …
Does that mean that the Minister could, if he wished, make advances in respect of unclassified roads? In Clause 1 (7) the appropriate authority for an unclassified road—or what is called "any other road"—is named. It seems, therefore, that the Minister could, if he wished, make advances for unclassified roads.

Mr. Barnes: Basically, that is not possible. As I said earlier, this matter of grant has been settled in a very established form with all local authorities, and to depart from established procedure would be a major change of policy, and could hardly be undertaken on a Bill of this kind. That is the point which I have made, and I do not wish to go beyond that.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: There is one point which I wish to raise and as the Clause deals with money it is perhaps appropriate to refer to it now. Certain county councils are concerned about reimbursement to their highway departments for the necessary costs of removing statutory undertakers' pipes and cables, Post Office wires and things of that kind. Could the right hon. Gentleman give now an assurance, which those concerned will be able to read in HANSARD, that where grids and by-passes are provided which necessitate the removal of ducts, pipes, underground telephone cables and the like, the costs will be recoverable from his Department or from the statutory undertaker involved?

Mr. Barnes: I should hardly have thought that cattle-grids would have affected things of that kind. I should wish to look into that question to see if that eventuality is likely to arise before I commit myself. I should assume that it was very improbable that that would occur.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 13.—(INTERPRETATION.)

Mr. Baldwin: I beg to move, in page 9, line 28, at the end, to insert:
'animal' means any horse, pony, cattle, ass, mule, sheep, pig or goat.


If it would be in Order, I should like to ask that the words "or dog" be added at the end of the Amendment and that I be allowed to move it in that form. My hon. Friend who drafted it must have forgotten our very faithful friends, whom I should like to be included. The word "animal" appears many times throughout the Bill, and I think the time might arise when the courts might be asked to give a definition of this word.
I am sure that my overworked legal Friends will not mind if I suggest that the Amendment is necessary to clarify the position. For instance, it will be seen from Clause 2 (4) that the "appropriate authority" has power to determine that a by-pass is unnecessary. One of the reasons for such a determination may be that the by-pass is not necessary for
driven, led or ridden animals or any description of such animals.
I think that the addition of the definition contained in the Amendment will prove to be of assistance in the future. I suggest that a similar form of words should be used to that contained in section 22 (3) of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, which states:
In this section, the expression 'animal' means any horse, cattle, ass, mule, sheep, pig, goat, or dog.
I hope that the Amendment will commend itself to the Committee.

The Chairman: I take it that the hon. Member wishes to include the words "or dog" at the end of his Amendment, so that it will conclude with the words, "… pig goat or dog"?

Mr. Baldwin: Yes, Major Milner.

Colonel Clarke: I wish to support the Amendment, particularly with the inclusion of the words "or dog." Dogs are still essential on many farms, particularly sheep farms and many farmers find dogs very useful. I know from my experience that dogs have considerable difficulty in crossing these grids. I have a grid outside my house, and I notice that my dog always runs along a little wall at the side of it and never tries to cross it in any other way. Some of these grids might not have the necessary wall. It is also possible that sheep brought down from the hills may never have seen one of these grids before. I think it essential that the words "or dog" should be added to the list descriptive of the word "animal."

The Solicitor-General: The Amendment proposed would not really improve the Bill, but, on the contrary, would limit its scope and have the effect of frustrating the very purpose which hon. Members supporting the Amendment have in mind. I would remind the Committee of the structure of the Bill. The word "animal" is left undefined, that is to say, it is entirely comprehensive and may cover any kind of animal. If we look back to the beginning of the Bill we see that the appropriate authority can insert a cattle-grid; when we look to see what a cattle-grid is we see that it is
a device designed to prevent the passage of animals, or animals of any particular description.
As the Bill is constructed, the authority can consider what kind of animal they want to hinder in passage in a particular locality and construct a cattle-grid to be suitable to deal with those animals. Therefore, if one limits the categories of animals with which the authority can deal by inserting a definition as is proposed by the Amendment, we would limit the power of the authority to deal with any kind of animal not within the terms of the definition. Dogs could now be dealt with by the authority, but other sorts of animal which are not included in the definition which it is sought to insert would be excluded from the purview of the Bill and the result of limiting the term "animal" to certain specific animals would be to rob the authority of power to provide a cattle-grid to deal with any other such animals.
By limiting the category of animals and putting in a definition such as is suggested, one is limiting the authority by saying that it cannot provide cattle-grids for dealing with any animals other than those defined. It is, therefore, better to leave the wording as it is. One might want to deal with all sorts of animals. For example, deer are not included in the definition and perhaps—to take a more extreme and unlikely example, but a possible example, nevertheless—there might be a private park in which there are animals of a very unusual kind kept in order to gratify the whim of the proprietor who might be interested in that kind of animal.
As the Bill stands, in that unlikely and extreme event it would be possible to provide a cattle-grid to deal with that kind of animal—I hesitate to give an example,


but they may be kangaroos or zebras, or anything else. But, if the definition limits animals to certain specific types of animals, the authority could not deal with any unusual sorts they wanted to deal with in some locality.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Hay: I think I speak for bon. Members on all sides of the Committee when I say I find the explanation of the Solicitor-General rather fanciful and fantastic. Apart from deer, which I agree, are omitted, the definition is comprehensive and includes practically every sort of animal which it is possible to imagine would be hindered in passage by a cattle-grid. The purpose is to provide cattle-grids, not zebra grids, or elephant grids, or anything of that kind. Dogs are domestic animals, but they are of very great use in the countryside——

The Solicitor-General: The hon. Member says that the definition is extensive. I quite agree, but it is not as extensive as the Bill as it stands, because the Bill is now all comprehensive.

Mr. Hay: That adds point to the remarks I was making. I suggest that the Amendment deals with almost every kind of animal one is likely to find in the countryside and I cannot see why the right hon. and learned Gentleman should deny that. It makes the position exactly clear and I urge the right hon. and learned Gentleman to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Renton: I find myself in disagreement with my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Hay). In the first place I disagree that the Amendment is comprehensive of all types of domestic animals which one might usually find on farms and on the countryside. It does not include "mare" and, as hon. Members know, "horse" is the male of the species. Also, if we mention "mule," we should also mention the converse, and I am not sure what the converse is.

Mr. J. Grimston: Hinny.

Mr. Renton: If we mention dog I am not sure that we ought not to mention hound, because some people would greatly object to hounds being referred to as dogs. I am sure that in law the right hon. and learned Gentleman is right

when he says it is better to leave the word "animal," because, if we use other words, they will be words of limitation, which might be dangerous. I must disagree with him, however, if he was making a point of law, when he said that if people have in their parks or grounds peculiar kinds of animals, presumably wild animals, that there will be cattle-grids specially designed for them. He must know that a person who keeps a wild animal does so at his peril, and is not likely to be so unwise as to try to keep it in and away from his neighbours by a kind of fancy cattle-grid.

Mr. Baldwin: I think there is some confusion in this matter. We are not proposing the Amendment for the purpose of using the grid as a stoppage for animals, but so that the description of the animals should be quite clear. By Clause 2 (4) the authority have the right to remove a by-pass. We want it quite clear why they should have the right to remove a by-pass where the following words apply:
Where, as respects a by-pass provided for use in connection with a cattle-grid which has not been removed, being a by-pass required to be provided only for driven, led or ridden animals or any description of such animals.
We do not want the by-passes done away with and we are not trying to stop lions in a park, but we want the by-pass to remain so that animals can go over a grid. We are not talking about confining animals to a park with a grid, but we are talking about a case in which an authority can decide whether a by-pass need be removed, or not, although the grid may be left. If we do away with the by-pass and leave the grid we shall be stopping the passage of certain animals and it should be clearly defined what "removed" really means. I think the Amendment is comprehensive. If it is desired to insert another description, well and good, but we are looking at it from a different point of view.

Amendment negatived.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I beg to move, in page 9, line 39, to leave out from "means," to the end of line 41, and to insert:
such part of a highway as is metalled or which has otherwise been laid out for the passage of wheeled vehicles.
The object of this Amendment is to provide a new definition of the word


"road" in place of the one which the Amendment seeks to delete. This matter is a little complicated. At the present moment a road is defined as including the grass verges on each side of it. That is clearly the case because the definition of "road" contained in the Bill refers to a:
way along which there exists a public right of passage with vehicles, …
We all know that the grass verges of roads constitute a right of way and that many people use them as such. Therefore, "road" has the wider definition of being what is between the two hedges, including the verges on each side as well as the carriageway or metalled strip. If that is the definition it seems to me to make nonsense of the proviso to Clause 1 (3), which we were discussing earlier, by which the appropriate authority is empowered to take over:
common or waste land not forming part of the road, …
because if it does not form part of the road according to the definition I have given it must be land which is over the hedge.
It is clear from what has been said this afternoon both by my hon. Friends in supporting Amendments and the Minister in replying that no one has had any such idea in their mind. Therefore, according to those who drafted the proviso to Clause 1 (3) "road" means the metalled strip and that the grass verge on each side is in the nature of common or waste land between the hedges which might be taken over. So we are thrown back upon the definition which I want to put into the Bill, which supports the view held by many people that a highway is the metalled strip plus the verges on each side up to the hedges, and that a road is none other than the actual carriageway or appropriate piece of land. I should like the Minister to accept our Amendment which so defines "road" in the knowledge that in so doing he is putting some sense into the proviso in Clause 1 (3).

The Solicitor-General: Let me take the first point on which I part company with the noble Lord. When referring to a road we should on the definition which he is proposing to put in the Bill have to go on extending it sideways until we somewhere found a hedge. A road as described in the definition which the Bill now contains is simply the carriageway,

the verge, and that part of the adjoining area which one can reasonably say comes within the boundary of the roadway itself. The noble Lord referred to the proviso to Clause 1 (3). Suppose there is a road with a carriageway and a verge, and then at the edge of the verge waste land begins. If he is correct the road is the carriageway and the verge commences where the waste land begins. The definition in the Bill fits in exactly with the proviso to Clause 1 (3).
If we re-defined "road" in the sense in which the noble Lord proposes we should have to do a great deal of redrafting of other parts of the Bill, in particular in connection with the proviso to Clause 1 (3), and we should have to deal with the position which would arise when we speak of building a gate outside the roadway. As the definition stands at present it is perfectly intelligible. Everyone knows what they mean by the boundaries of a road, they can always tell where they are when they see them. There is no reason to extend them sideways in the way suggsted in the Amendment.
I would ask the Committee to say that the definition in the Bill is perfectly intelligible, that there is no reason to alter it, and by so doing have to make the many consequential Amendments which would be required. Apart from that, the proposed definition, in referring only to:
such part of a highway as is metalled …
is too limited in scope. I hope that the Committee will agree that the Amendment does not improve the Bill, would require changes to be made in the Bill and would itself introduce uncertainty.

Mr. Renton: I was a little surprised that the Solicitor-General did not point out some precedent for this definition of a road because there have been roads in this country ever since this House has been passing laws. A great number of definitions—I am afraid different ones— of roads and highways have occurred throughout our legislation. We do not wish to add to the list of definitions but if there is a useful precedent it would be helpful to include it in this Bill. If this definition follows a precedent my hon. Friends might think differently about the matter. If it is some new departure can we be told that also? Let us try to make this important Bill dovetail with highway legislation that has gone before.

Sir A. Hudson: I was about to ask much the same question, namely, from whence comes this definition which is in the Bill? The definition says that "road" means
any way along which there exists a public right of passage with vehicles, whether exerciseable over the whole or a part only of the width of the way;".
If one begins driving a vehicle over the grass verge one very soon finds that it is strongly objected to by the local authority or the highway authority. I am not asserting that the definition is a wrong one but it would be useful if we could find some definition of highway in the old Road Acts which would meet the case. The definition at present in the Bill does not seem to do so. It does not seem to me that one has a right to drive one's vehicle along the grass verge. I wonder if the Solicitor-General can tell us from whence came the definition?

Colonel Clarke: I would support what has just been said by my hon. Friend. I note that the definition of "road" in the Road Traffic Act, 1930, is quite different from that contained in the Bill. It says:
'Road' means any highway and any other road to which the public has access, and includes bridges over which a road passes.
So in this Bill we are making a completely new definition.

The Solicitor-General: The difficulty about trying to define a road, or highway, or a way is that there is no uniform definition upon which one can fix. If there was a universal definition in the many Acts of Parliament which deal with roads and highways it would be a good idea to reproduce it in this Bill. But there are a whole variety of definitions of all kinds. Therefore, when drafting a new Measure there is no reason for using any particular definition which does not easily fit in with the context of the Bill. The definition which is contained in the Bill does, and I hope that the Committee will agree that there is no reason for changing it, and by so doing have to make radical changes in the Bill which would be necessary in consequence of that change.

Amendment negatived.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 14,—(PROVISIONS AS TO CATTLE- GRIDS AND BY-PASSES PROVIDED BEFORE COMMENCEMENT OF ACT.)

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I beg to move, in page 10, line 20, to leave out "by a local authority."
I propose also, with your permission, Major Milner, to move a consequential manuscript Amendment, in line 32, to leave out subsection (3).

The Chairman (Major Milner): I propose to accept the consequential manuscript Amendment.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: The object of this Amendment is to make sure that the Bill covers grids which have already been provided on private estates and private land, or indeed anywhere and by whatever local authority or person. To leave the words "local authority" in the Clause would mean that the various benefits and provisions of this Bill would apply only to acts done by local authorities in the past. The major work, so far, in connection with cattle-grids has been done by commoners and land owners up and down the country. Many hundreds of cattle-grids are already in existence which will be taken over and legalised and provided for by the Minister when this Bill goes through.
7.0 p.m.
Therefore, had it not been for private enterprise in the past there would have been no Bill of this kind at present. That only shows that all the wisdom does not lie in the heads of Socialist Ministers opposite. If the right hon. Gentleman is disposed, as I think he is, to accept this Amendment, and the deletion of the subsection, he is joining in a nice and friendly piece of retroactive legislation and I would give a warm welcome to that acceptance. He would also be doing a thing which most right hon. Gentlemen on that side of the Committee find it very hard to do, and that is patting wicked Tory landowners on the back.

Mr. Barnes: I hardly thought that the little arrangement made between myself and the noble Lord would warrant the description applied to it by him in moving this Amendment. I found I was able to accept his first Amendment provided he completed the process by moving the subsequent


Amendment, which would enable me to withdraw an Amendment down in my name. To me it was quite a simple piece of drafting and I hardly imagined it would thrill the noble Lord to the extent he has indicated.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 10, line 32, leave out subsection (3).— [Viscount Hinchingbrooke.]

The Chairman: I gather that the Minister does not intend to move the Amendment in page 10, line 33, after "England" to insert, "and Wales."

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 15.—(SHORT TITLE, COMMENCE MENT AND EXTENT.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Renton: This is the Clause by virtue of which this Bill is to come into operation on a day to be appointed by the Minister. Assuming that the Minister is to be in power for ever, would he be so good as to tell the Committee whether it is his intention to make the appointed day this year, next year, sometime or never?
My second point is that in line 42 there are four words which it seems to me make nonsense and are unnecessary and on Report stage should be deleted. They are the words, "other than this section." Presumably, when the appointed day does come the Minister will want a great deal of this Section to come into force. In the first place with regard to subsection (1), he will want the Act to be constituted in the proper way. With regard to subsection (3) he will want those provisions to come into force, and with regard to subsection (4)—I know it is a negative—but I should have thought he would want that to come into operation on the appointed day with the rest of the Bill. So will he please explain why those words have been inserted?

The Solicitor-General: The words, "other than this section" mean that this Section is to come into force as soon as the Bill is passed. Clause 15 must come into force as soon as the Bill

becomes an Act, otherwise the Minister has no power to appoint the day for the other Sections to come into effect at some time in the future.

Mr. Renton: I am much obliged to the right hon. and learned Gentleman; and now may I have an answer from the Minister to my first question?

Mr. Barnes: The hon. Member can be assured that I shall not fix the appointed day until I am satisfied that I have a practical cattle-grid.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule.—(PROCEDURE FOR DETERMINA TION BY APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY OF CERTAIN QUESTIONS.)

Colonel Clarke: I beg to move, in page 13, line 48, at the end, to insert:
Provided that no such notice, post or board shall be affixed to any building or structure without the prior consent of the owner and occupier thereof.
I do not think that this is an unreasonable request. The owners of land do their best to keep up its appearance, and if persons are able by statute to post notices on that land without their consent it does make much harder the task of keeping it tidy. I feel that as time goes on the owners of land are treated with less and less consideration, and in spite of that fact they have increasing responsibilities. I know that these notices will not be up for very long, only for a fortnight, so that it is not really a very big point. But it is a matter of courtesy and will not cause a lot of trouble to the local authority. Sometimes by liaison between the two the local authority may be helped.
For example, the owner may be able to indicate a more suitable place in which the notice might be posted than the one suggested. But to allow notices to be posted without the owner having any say in the matter is wrong. I do not think that consent would ever be unreasonably withheld, but there are occasions where a certain amount of give and take would be helpful. It might be possible to post the notice in a place where it would be equally visible to the public without being quite such a nuisance as it might be if it were put, for example, in front of the windows of a


dwelling-house. The point is quite clear. It is not a major point, but one which might help to ease the position in the country-side and help to smooth the passage of this very reasonable Measure.

Mr. Barnes: We have no objection at all to the point mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member. However, we wish to make sure that this is the appropriate wording, and we should like to examine it before we accept it.

Colonel Clarke: I should like to thank the Minister for what he has said. Of course, it may be better to improve the wording, without changing the sense. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule agreed to.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered Tomorrow, and to be printed [Bill 28].

Orders of the Day — ROYAL PATRIOTIC FUND CORPORATION BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Colonel Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(EXTENSION OF OBJECTS OF SOLDIERS' EFFECTS FUND.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

7.10 p.m.

Mr. A. R. W. Low: During the Second Reading Debate some of my hon. Friends expressed anxiety about the effect of this Clause. Among my hon. Friends who spoke then, was the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser), who has asked me to apologise to the Secretary of State for his absence today. Unfortunately, he is ill in bed. Our main anxiety about this Clause, as I think the Secretary of State will remember, and as he himself mentioned in his closing speech on that occasion, was that as a result of making the purposes for which the Soldiers' Effects Fund might be used much wider than they are at present, a flood of claims might occur, and that those at present entitled under the restricted purposes now in operation might suffer.
That was our anxiety. As I am sure the Committee will agree, it is right and proper that that anxiety should be expressed, and that inquiries should have been made and further thought given to the matter. I should like to say now that, so far as I have been able to ascertain, those anxieties are mostly false anxieties. I hope to explain to the Committee why I think that is the case. I will discuss our main anxiety in two parts. We were most concerned that a flood of claims might arise when the purposes of this Fund were widened. At the time I felt that anxiety, I thought that claimants on this Fund made their claims specifically upon the Fund, but I now understand that that is wrong, and that claimants who wish to get assistance from any of the funds under the jurisdiction and administration of the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation make their claims to the Corporation as a whole. Therefore, it is clear that by this Clause we are not increasing the number of people who may make claims upon the Royal Patriotic Fund. I hope that I am right in that, because that is one of the main reasons why I feel that my earlier anxiety need no longer exist.
For example, widows of soldiers who died more than six months after they had left the Service may, and do already, apply to the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation for assistance if they need it, and they may have their needs met out of other funds. The unfortunate point is that many of these other funds are not as big as the Soldiers' Effects Fund. Therefore, it seems to me on that count there is no reason to expect that there will be a flood of claimants. I imagine, however, that it may be that, in the normal course, the number of claims may increase. I understand that as the years went by after the end of 1914–18 war, claims on the Fund began to increase for a period and then decreased. We may expect an increase in claims, but it will not be due to the widening of the purposes set out in this Clause.
Some of my hon. Friends also expressed the view that it was wrong to alter the terms of the Trust in this way. But, as I think was explained on the Second Reading, there is no question of altering the wishes of the testator or the donor. There is no specific trust attached to this money in the Soldiers' Effects Fund and,


therefore, no question arises about that. The other point that troubled us was that persons now entitled to draw benefits from this Fund may suffer if more people are able to get help from the Fund. As the Secretary of State said, there is no reason why that should be so. This Corporation is very much like a trustee, and very much in the position of a trustee who must have a fairly wide discretion in administering the terms of a so-called trust.
I think that we may expect them to look after the category of people who had a claim upon them before this Bill was passed. On Second Reading we asked the Secretary of State whether he intended to introduce any Regulations to provide that particular classes might have priority. I hope that he will be able to tell us today whether he intends to introduce Regulations of that kind and, if so, the form which they will take.
I have a further comment to make in connection with the Second Reading Debate, and it is about expenses. The hon. and gallant Member for Hull, East (Commander Pursey) and I had an interesting argument about expenses, during which he tried to make me do a mathematical problem and divide £4,000 by £16,000. My anxiety was lest, if there were more claimants, the expenses of the Fund would go up. Of course, that was quite wrong and I have found out why. It was wrong because all claims are made to the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation which, I understand, has an honorary agent to help them look into claims and to make use of bodies such as S.S.A.F.A. to help them. I do not think that there is any question of extra expense falling upon the Fund.
For these reasons, I find that my hon. Friends and I are not in opposition to the general purposes of this Clause, but we hope that the Secretary of State will be able to satisfy the reasonable doubts which hon. Gentlemen still have that, somehow, the result of this Clause might be to affect in the wrong way widows and dependants who are entitled under the law as it is at present.

Mr. George Wigg: Since I have been a Member of the House of Commons, I have never listened to a more extraordinary speech than the one

we have just heard. The hon. Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Low) talked about trust funds, testators' gifts and the rest. They have nothing at all to do with the Clause.

Mr. Low: That is just what I said. The hon. Gentleman did not listen.

Mr. Wigg: I beg his pardon. He also had an Amendment on the Order Paper to delete this Clause, but he did not move it. I very much regret that that Amendment was not moved.

Mr. Low: It was not called.

Mr. Wigg: I regret that it was not called, because it would have given us an opportunity to expose the Conservative Party in their capacity as the soldiers' friends—not only their past record but their present record.
The Soldiers' Effects Fund came into being because the credit balances which exist at the time of soldiers' deaths over a period of very many years have accumulated until there is a very great sum. There is no less than £283,469 available. Who is to get the money? Under the very restricted provisions of the law as it stands, I think that only 61 widows and some 300 children can possibly get advantage from that Fund. The reason for that is because of the regulations under which the Fund is administered has ceased to exist.
Let me give an example. One of the regulations of the Soldiers' Effects Fund is that allowances can be made to widows who were on the Married Quarters Roll. There is no such thing in the Army today as a Married Quarters Roll. It is rather interesting that hon. Members opposite, who for a considerable time have opposed the only people who know anything about how the Army is run, and who now come to the Committee to look after the interests of the soldiers, do not know that the Married Quarters Roll referred to in these Regulations had ceased to exist even by the end of the First World War. It is just nonsense to think that grants can be restricted to women who are on the Married Quarters Roll.
Considerable sums of money have accumulated under the auspices of this organisation, and no good has come to anybody. I entirely agree with my hon.


and gallant Friend the Member for Hull, East (Commander Pursey), the quicker these funds are wound up and brought under the administration of the Ministry of Pensions, to be used for the benefit of the people from whom the money came in the first place——

Mr. Low: On a point of Order. Are we to be allowed to discuss this matter, Sir Charles? It seems to me that this Clause is concerned only with widening the purpose, not whether the Fund should exist. If we are to be allowed to discuss this matter I am sure that there are many of my hon. Friends who would wish to say something on that.

The Deputy-Chairman (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): There is quite a narrow point involved in this Clause, namely, the extension of the objects of the Soldiers' Effects Fund.

Mr. Wigg: If this Clause lays down the conditions under which the Fund is to be administered in the future, surely I am allowed to comment on the way that will work. At present, we cannot do very much good unless we can administer this Fund in such a way as to do good for the people from whom the money came. The money did not come as donations from generous people. It came from the pockets of men who served in the ranks of the Regular Army; men whose names we do not now know; we certainly do not know the addresses of their relatives because if we did, we could hand this money back and put an end to the Fund.
This Committee should determine where this money should go. We shall have to wait for a future Bill to wind up, not only this Fund but all the other funds as well. This Bill is a very belated first step in the right direction. I regret very much that we have had to wait until 1950 to do this. Why was not this done in the years during which the Tory Party was in office and had the opportunity to see that these funds were used properly instead of, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, East, said on Second Reading, allowing the rattling of tin cans?

The Deputy-Chairman: The Debate on the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill" is very narrow. At page 528 of Erskine May it is stated:

Debate upon this question must be confined to the clause, as amended, and must not extend to a discussion of the circumstances under which particular amendments were made or to a review in detail of the proceedings on the clause.
Debate on this Question is, therefore, very narrow.

Mr. Wigg: I mentioned earlier in my remarks that I was sorry the hon. Member for Blackpool, North, had not had an opportunity of moving his Amendment——

The Deputy-Chairman: On that point, I ought perhaps to make this clear. I think it was said that the Amendment was not selected. That is not the case. The Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill" has to be put, and an Amendment such as that would be really meaningless.

Mr. Wigg: There is very little more I want to say, except that I welcome the step the Government have now taken. It is a first step in the right direction; I hope the Committee will support it, and that before long a wider Measure than this will be brought to the House, in which the Government take the further steps necessary.

Commander Pursey: I wish to support this Clause, and also to say that I regret, for whatever reason it was, that the Opposition were not able to move their Amendment, because they said some very queer things on Second Reading.

Mr. Low: So did you.

The Deputy-Chairman: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman had been paying attention he would have heard me say that we cannot discuss anything except what is in the Clause. To discuss an Amendment which was not called is out of Order.

Commander Pursey: The object of the Clause is to remove the six months' limit. With your permission, Sir Charles, I should like to show what happens as a result of that. I hope I shall keep within your Ruling and be able to continue.
The position of the Fund at the moment is that it has an income of about £10,000, of which less than £8,000 is spent, so that there is £2,000 unexpended each year. As there may be an opportunity on Third Reading to say something in a more


general sense, I will not continue at any length, except to say that last year the Council of the Corporation expressed concern about this in their annual report, which we have only had since the Second Reading. They have asked for this limit to be withdrawn. Previously it was argued that it was new to make any alterations, when in point of fact the original Royal Warrant of this Soldiers' Effects Fund allowed that, and any alterations made will be governed by a new Royal Warrant. Alterations have been made, and in introducing this Bill to alter the terms of the Commission we are establishing no precedent. At the same time as the Patriotic Fund Corporation handles the surplus of £2,000 we must refer to them, and they have gone to the Army Benevolent Fund to get another £1,000 to deal with some of the widows who could not be dealt with by the Soldiers' Effects Fund.

The Deputy-Chairman: I cannot see how the hon. and gallant Gentleman's remarks now are connected with Clause 1.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Strachey): I ought to say a word or two in reply to the hon. Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Low), because I have undertaken to give an account of the Royal Warrant which will be issued as a result of the passage of this Bill. He is perfectly right in saying that what we are widening here is not the scope of the Royal Patriotic Fund altogether, but the scope of the Soldiers' Effects Fund within the work of the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation. The object of widening the scope of that Fund rather than that of the Corporation is to abolish the six months' rule. We abolish it, not entirely but primarily, to bring in that class of widow who at present falls between the two stools of the war pensions administration and the National Insurance administration, and it will have that effect.
While we have by this Bill widened considerably the scope of the beneficiaries under the Soldiers' Effects Fund, we propose to issue a Royal Warrant which will then narrow it again, but narrow it only in this sense: that we shall put back the widows of men who died from attributable causes—that is, causes attributable to their service—as preferential. The whole of the existing beneficiaries will be a preferential class, but a whole

new class of persons whose husbands died from non-attributable causes will be brought in at second choice, as it were, and that will be the general effect of Clause 1.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 2 and 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without Amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

7.30 p.m.

Commander Pursey: I hope I shall be in Order in dealing at this stage with the points concerning the Soldiers' Effects Fund. At the annual meeting of the Council of the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation last year, General Knox, the Vice-Chairman, said that they had found it necessary to have a special fund to deal with the cases of widows of men who served in World War II. He said that they dealt with these applications as best they could from the Soldiers' Effects Fund, but that one of the conditions attached to that fund was that death must have occurred within six months of discharge, whereas they received many cases which did not fulfil that condition.
The general went on to say that they wanted to get another fund because they could not use the full money of the Soldiers' Effects Fund, and that, as I understand it, is one of the reasons why the Corporation have taken steps to come to this House to get amending legislation in this Bill in order to enable them to grant benefits to a larger number of beneficiaries; I hope we shall be in Order in tracing what happens to this money, who the new beneficiaries will be and in what way they will benefit.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): No. I think I had better read to the hon. Gentleman what happens on Third Reading. According to page 543 of Erskine May, the Debate is more restricted at this later stage and is limited to the matters contained in the Bill.

Commander Pursey: The point with which I am trying to deal is that concerning what will happen as the result of this


Bill, when another £2,000 will be made available for distribution. Such being the case, I submit that it is in Order to discuss what will happen to that £2,000, because, in a nutshell, that is what happens as the result of this Bill.
The position is that the Soldiers' Effects Fund has an annual income of £10,000, of which less than £8,000 is spent. Consequently, steps have been taken to obtain a new Act, which will mean a new Royal Warrant amending the previous one. This £2,000 starts in Government hands, in the hands of the various Departments controlling the three Services. It is then passed to a charity, where there is a high-powered committee of brass hats and so on, and, by that time, the situation is quite ludicrous, because they meet only once a year to pass a formal annual report, which is in print. Then, it has to go somewhere else.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I wish the hon. and gallant Gentleman would take a look at the Bill, when he would see that this is quite out of Order.

Commander Pursey: Am I in Order in discussing this £2,000, the distribution of which is the sole purpose of this Bill? That purpose is to free this sum for those widows who previously have not been entitled to benefit because they have been barred by the six months' limit which it is the purpose of this Bill to remove.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I read out to the hon. and gallant Gentleman exactly what this discussion may embrace. It can only be about what is contained in the Bill.

Commander Pursey: Then, before this money can reach the beneficiaries for whom this House wishes to do something, by means of this Bill and later by a new Royal Warrant, it has to be handed over to another charitable organisation, namely, the Soldiers', Sailors', and Airmen's Families' Association, because the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation has no national organisation to deal with their own cases. That is the situation which needs further investigation to bring it into line with present day requirements.
It so happens that it is, I believe, the first time for over 50 years that any

amending legislation has been introduced into this House to deal with the Soldiers' Effects Fund. The last time was in 1893, although in 1903 there was a new Act to deal with the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation, and there was, in 1895 and 1896, a Select Committee of this House which investigated these funds and made the same complaints that are made now of the lack of information about them. The beneficiaries did not know of them and were not in a position to apply for assistance from the fund.
Among other recommendations in draft form which the Select Committee made was one that there should be Members of Parliament on the Council of the Corporation. Generally speaking, the position then was unsatisfactory, as it is unsatisfactory today. A further recommendation was that the annual report should be distributed to ships and regiments——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: These are all questions of administration, and the Bill deals only with objects.

Mr. Wigg: As the Bill does provide for a new method, or at least a new range of beneficiaries, is it not within the scope of the Bill to discuss to whom that money will go?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It would not be in Order to deal at great length with questions of administration which are not contained within the Bill.

Commander Pursey: If I may pack up administration, because I am very keen to keep within your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I should like to say that the one thing which the Opposition do not want to hear is this information.

Mr. Low: What?

Commander Pursey: Spilling the beans about this fund. The position concerning this Soldiers' Effects Fund is that there is £1,700 going to an orphanage, but I will not attempt to deal with that in detail. This extra £2,000 can either be distributed by means of allowances to widows and orphans in weekly amounts, or, alternatively, used for grants. It might also be used for educational purposes, either by a scholarship scheme or by a system of selection for this orphanage which receives money from the fund already.
I suggest to the Secretary of State for War that this additional money which will be made available by this Bill should not go to the orphanage, which has already got £250,000, although £50,000 has been spent on a school, but should be used for the benefit of widows and of orphans who do not go to that school, in bringing in people not at present covered and using this money to the best advantage, namely, to those who, as the Secretary of State for War has said, fall between two stools because they are covered neither by disability pensions nor, so far, by social security funds. At the same time, this Soldiers' Effects Fund, which started with £44,000 in 1884, which trebled itself in 10 years, and which is now over £250,000, is still increasing. I suggest to the Secretary of State for War that, instead of being allowed to go on increasing, it should be disposed of during the next generation, because there is no question that this is a trust fund created for a particular purpose.
Then comes the point as regards representation for the purpose of dealing with this money. During the Select Committee of 1895–6, it was suggested that there should be representatives from other ranks in the Service. Not only do we want youth there instead of individuals ranging up to the 80's——

Mr. Low: On a point of Order. Is it in Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for the hon. and gallant Gentleman to proceed on these lines, because, if so, we on this side would like to reply to some of the things he is saying?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I have said as firmly as I can that this Bill does not deal with administration, but the hon. and gallant Member just takes no notice of my Ruling.

Mr. Wigg: With great respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I would submit that my hon. and gallant Friend is in Order in discussing the objects as set out in Clause 1.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Yes, if he confines his remarks to the objects, but he is going into the administration, which is much wider.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill, accordingly, read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — POTATOES AND RYE (ACREAGE PAYMENTS)

7.45 p.m.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Thomas Williams): I beg to move,
That the Agriculture Act (Part 1) Extension of Period Order, 1950, dated 2nd May, 1950, a copy of which was laid before this House on 4th May, be approved.
This Order is made by the Minister of Agriculture, the Secretary of State for Scotland, and the Secretary of State for the Home Department under Section 4 (2) of the Agriculture Act, 1947, to extend the operation of Section 4 of that Act. No Order under that Section can have effect after the expiration of three years from the passing of that Act, that is, beyond 6th August, 1950, unless the period is extended by a year at a time by an Order made by the Ministers.
Section 4 of the Act gave the above Ministers and also the Minister of Food, wide powers to make the necessary administrative arrangements for carrying out the policy of guaranteed prices and assured markets where there was no existing arrangement which could be used for that purpose, or where the provisions for such an arrangement were inadequate or unsuitable. The three years have expired, but, in February, 1949, it was agreed in the review of that month that acreage payments for 1950 should be made on rye and potatoes. Therefore we ask for this Order to enable the next Order to be dealt with, which merely fulfils part of the arrangement we made at the time of the price review in February, 1949.

Question put, and agreed to.

Mr. T. Williams: I beg to move,
That the Crop Acreage Payments (England and Wales) Order, 1950, dated 2nd May, 1950, a copy of which was laid before this House on 4th May, be approved.
The object of this Order is, I repeat, simply to give effect to a part of the February, 1949, price review, and to enable the Government to make acreage payments for potatoes and rye grown in 1950. No acreage payment will be made in respect of those commodities beyond 1950, but this Order at least fulfils the pledge we made last year.

Major Sir Thomas Dugdale: For purposes of record, could the Minister tell the House how this Order varies from the 1949 Order? There is no acreage payment for wheat under this


Order because that has been stopped, and there has been a variation with regard to potatoes.

Mr. T. Williams: There have been two slight changes. The acreage payment on potatoes for 1949 was £12 for the first 10 acres, and £8 for the remainder. In 1950, the payment is £10 for every acre. The minimum area for which an acreage payment is made is increased to a quarter of an acre instead of one-sixteenth. Those are about the only changes made in this Order.

Question put, and agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Crop Acreage Payments (Scotland) Order, 1950, dated 3rd May, 1950, a copy of which was laid before this House on 3rd May, he approved."—[Mr. T. Fraser.]

Sir T. Dugdale: As there is a slight difference between the Order relating to England and Wales and this Order relating to Scotland, could the Minister give the House, for record purposes, a little explanation regarding what are known as the "crofter" counties?

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Thomas Fraser): That, in fact, is the only difference. In the crofting counties we have made what would be described as a concession to the crofters there by taking into account, for purposes of this acreage payment, an area of one-tenth of an acre, whereas in the rest of the country we do not take into account an area of less than one-quarter of an acre. That is the only difference between this Order and the one which applies to England and Wales. We do that because in Scotland there are about a quarter of a million crofters who have only two, three or four acres, and many of them would be unable to receive an acreage payment if this were not done

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Will my hon. Friend say what was the expenditure in Scotland last year, and what is the estimated expenditure for this year?

Mr. T. Fraser: I could not say without notice.

Question put, and agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Crop Acreage Payments (Northern Ireland) Order, 1950, dated 1st May, 1950,

a copy of which was laid before this House on 3rd May, be approved."—[Mr. G. de Freitas.]

Sir T. Dugdale: May we have an explanation with regard to this Order because the acreage payments are different, I believe, in Northern Ireland?

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas): That is perfectly correct. It will be seen from the Order that the actual payment is £2 an acre less. The equivalent saving in money goes to payment when the potatoes are bought. That is the principal difference, but, of course, there are others with which I shall be pleased to deal if they are put to me.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Can my hon. Friend say what was the expenditure on this subsidy in Northern Ireland?

Mr. de Freitas: It is, of course, impossible to forecast what the effects of this will be.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I am referring to last year.

Mr. de Freitas: I could not give my hon. Friend an answer without notice, but that point is not relevant to this Order, which deals only with the future.

Question put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL [Lords]

Considered in Committee.

[Colonel Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

7.50 p.m.

Clause 1.—(ENACTMENTS SCHEDULES REPEALED.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Tempted, as I am, to ask the Solicitor-General to make some explanation about the application of this Clause and, in particular, the very voluminous Schedule attached to it; tempted, as I am, to ask him to explain to us what the Statute of Henry III dealing with damages to the widows on writ of dower really means, and the Act removing disqualification of Membership of the House of Commons, which is now apparently


going, I propose to resist that temptation. I propose merely to say—as I think I can on the Motion "that the Clause stand part" without getting out of Order—that we welcome this Bill wholeheartedly. We hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman may be able to ensure that the results of these labours will be available to the general public at a much lower cost than the volumes of Statutory Rules and Orders which have recently been made available. If this valuable work is to produce the desired results, the revised Statutes must be available at such a price as would make them obtainable by most members of the legal profession and many others. I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman will give consideration to that point. I would point out that this Bill does not contain any Financial Memorandum, and does not show what expenses will be involved. I am sure this work is worth while doing, provided that it is made possible for those who have to refer to these Statutes to have recourse to them.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Frank Soskice): I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller) for his welcome to this Bill. Obviously, it is one which both sides of the Committee will welcome. It is effecting an extremely useful purpose. With regard to the expense, it has to be borne in mind that the total addition will be 33 volumes to the third edition of the Revised Statutes. It is bound to have a fair price put upon it, but no price has been fixed. What the hon. and learned Gentleman said will be borne in mind, and, inded, has been borne in mind while these volumes have been in preparation.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 2 to 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

First, Second and Third Schedules agreed to.

Preamble agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

Orders of the Day — GENOCIDE CONVENTION

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Kenneth Robinson.]

7.55 p.m.

Mr. Janner: I am very glad of the opportunity to bring to the notice of the House a matter which, in my view, is of very considerable importance. I hope that will be a view which will be generally held after I have had an opportunity of explaining a little about the subject with which I wish to deal.
The question of the Convention on Genocide is something which strikes at the very root of the problem which is facing the world at present. It is a problem which is bound up not only with the interests of one person or a set of persons, but with the interests of groups throughout the length and breadth of the world who hold different religious or political points of view. It is particularly bound up with the future possibility of peace being established in the world. I put it on that level because the contentions that take place from time to time with regard to the use of weapons, the increased volume of weapons, the terrible nature of the weapons and the use of instruments of destruction will not alone prove effective in producing peace, in my opinion and in the opinion of those who have any reasonable hope for the world at all.
On the other hand, the United Nations, which exists for the specific purpose of trying to get the nations of the world together to argue out their cases and to iron out their difficulties, in my opinion and in the opinion of most reasonable people who understand the objects of the United Nations organisation, is the only effective method of eventually destroying the scourge of war. The General Assembly of the United Nations, on 9th December, 1948, adopted a convention to outlaw genocide. None of its members raised a voice in dissent; on the contrary, that Convention was accepted unanimously.
Genocide is the most horrible crime that can be committed. It is the crime of the destruction of a group of people solely on the ground that they happen to belong to that particular group. The Genocide Convention was universally applauded as a historic and important event in the


attempt by civilised peoples to develop international law so that the law which must be built up to safeguard the international community should be consistent with civilised national laws which protect the ordinary man and woman in their daily lives. The conscience of the world has been wounded by the unspeakable brutalities that have been inflicted on innocent men, women and children within our own time. This historic Convention is a step forward which clearly indicates the determination to avoid, so far as is humanly possible, the excuses hitherto advanced by tyrants and tyrannous Governments who have had millions of men and women literally at their mercy.
All too often, sections of mankind have inflicted cruelties upon groups living within their sole and absolute control, and no means of escape has been afforded to those groups. The peoples of the civilised world, stricken with horror when they realised the glaring truth of these inhumanities, have stood helplessly by, on the assumption that they have no legal right to interfere. The vastness of the number of victims involved and the unspeakable measures taken against these victims have frequently been of such a nature that the human mind of the common man in other countries has been incapable of believing that such atrocities were actually taking place. Thus, honest accounts of those horrors have often been dismissed as exaggerated rumours and often, too, when the true nature and extent of these crimes have been revealed, it has been too late for any intervention to be made at all, even if other peoples desired to make that intervention.
It took two years of hard work for the United Nations to draw up the Convention. The Social and Economic Council discussed the matter frequently at its meetings. Special committees were constituted, some of them consisting of very learned and experienced international lawyers. I would refer, for example, to the French Judge of the International Military Tribunal, the President of the International Association for Penal Law and a former adviser to the United States Prosecutor at the Nuremberg trials who were consulted. Every point raised was carefully and minutely considered before the Convention was adopted.
Until the Convention was adopted, many different points of view had to be expressed, and were expressed; and as far as possible these were met in order that the Convention could be adopted unanimously and made as effective as possible. But to understand the importance of the Convention and of the fact that it was adopted unanimously, I think we ought to remember that genocide, although it has only recently been given that name, is a crime which has been committed throughout the centuries. It was stated in this House at one time—I think flippantly; and it is a pity that a word of that nature should be dealt with by any person or any body of persons in a flippant manner, because of its extreme seriousness—that the word itself could perhaps be improved, but it was accepted by the United Nations as a suitable term to describe what was meant by the crime to which I have referred.
It is a new name for an old crime. It means the deliberate destruction of whole groups of people just because they belong to particular groups. The group may be racial, national or it may be religious, and in some cases it may be political-trade unions and so on. It may be a particular ethnical or racial group. The destruction of the group may take the form of massacres, of executions, of subjecting the group to such conditions, for example, as lack of food or housing or not allowing it the right to work, that it cannot continue to live.
It may take the form of restricting its birth rate by, for instance, the segregation of the sexes. It may take the form of destroying the special characteristics of the group by such means as the forced transfer of its children. We have had illustrations of that in recent times. We have had the illustration of the Greek children and children of the Jewish faith who have been taken for some years and who are not being restored to the faith to which they were originally attached.
These were all techniques used by the Nazi Government of Germany as part of its deliberate policy. They were used particularly against the racial and religious group, the Jews, and against the national linguistic group, the Poles. Although this destruction was practised in a much larger and more systematic way by the Germans after the coming into power of Hitler, it


was nothing new; although, of course, the scale on which it was practised then was a terrible one. Throughout the centuries, since the destruction of Carthage by the Romans, the crime of genocide has been practised. Right through the Middle Ages there were Jewish pogroms, mass killings, in various countries of Europe; more recently, in the last century, the massacres of the Armenians and the destruction of the Hereros in Africa; and in this century the persecution of the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire.
Although individuals and groups in other countries, and even foreign governments, were often roused to protest against such massacres—and I remember that on one occasion this House stood in silence, I think for the first time in its history, when it became known how terrible was the destruction of Jewish people in Germany—hitherto there was no action short of war they could take to prevent them. What action the Government of any country took, or permitted other groups in that country to take, against its own citizens was, according to some interpretations of international law, its own affair, but the systematic brutality practised by the Nazi regime shocked the conscience of the 20th-century out of this exaggerated respect for matters within domestic jurisdiction. It was recognised at Nuremberg that there were crimes against humanity for which those countries should be held responsible, and that these crimes must be punishable by law.
In its Charter the United Nations declared as one of its main purposes the achievement of international co-operation. These were the words:
in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion.
It became clear that international law would have to be developed to deal with the international crime of genocide. There are already examples of laws for dealing with certain international crimes—the slave trade, the illegal production and trade in narcotics, piracy, trade in women and children. International Conventions have been signed on these crimes and anyone guilty of them can be tried and punished not only in his own country but in whatever country to which he escapes, provided that country has adhered to the convention in question.
It was thought that the same procedure should apply to genocide. I have said that the question was brought before the General Assembly of the United Nations. It was first brought before them in November, 1946. A draft resolution was at this time submitted jointly by certain delegations. This resolution drew the attention of the Economic and Social Council to the crime of genocide and invited it to study the problem and report on the possibilities. These were the points which were raised: one, declaring genocide an international crime; two, ensuring international co-operation for its prevention and punishment; and three, recommending that it should be treated by national legislatures in the same was as other international crimes.
The matter was discussed by the Assembly's Sixth Legal Committee and certain suggestions were made by other delegations. For instance, it was proposed that the Assembly should itself declare that genocide was an international crime for which those concerned should be punished. Another proposal was that the Assembly should call on members to see that their national laws treated genocide on an equal footing with piracy, traffic in women and children and slaves, and other crimes violating the dignity of human beings.
It was suggested that a draft protocol should be drawn up defining genocide, enumerating the cases which fell within that definition and including provisions for ensuring the prevention and repression of genocide. It was also proposed that those responsible for the propagation and dissemination of hatred against nations, racial or religious groups, as a step preparatory to the crime of genocide, should be punished.
I would point out at this stage that there is ample cause even at the present time, for urgency in this matter. In Germany today there is a recrudescence of Nazism, a recrudescence of anti-Semitism which is horrible and which tends towards repeating tragic and brutal incidents similar to those which occurred during the Nazi regime. Apparently the Allies, the occupying Powers, have not been able to suppress it, and there are strong statements—indeed, very strong statements—coming from persons visiting Germany today to the effect that the Streicheresque element is raising its ugly head again.
Even in this country from time to time we have had raised in this very House questions in respect of meetings which are held by men who have no hesitation in going into districts and advocating that the same bestial kind of thing that happened in Belsen and Buchenwald should be once again brought into effect, and urging the people of this country to take that point of view. It is true that all of those who listen at these meetings do not realise what is meant by Belsen and Buchenwald, otherwise they would hound the speakers out of the streets; but unfortunately this kind of gutter propaganda is prevalent in some districts of London, and other parts of the country. We get that Fascist element who utilise anti-Semitism as almost the only argument they have got. They try to incite men and women to commit the very acts which ultimately lead to genocide, and which are not only revolting to the national conscience in a particular country but are revolting to the conscience of the world as a whole.
Now on the basis of these proposals to which I have referred, a sub-committee drew up a resolution which was accepted —unanimously accepted: I want to bring this again to the notice of my hon. Friend —by the Committee and by the General Assembly in plenary session on 11th December, 1946. That means that the resolution to introduce this convention was agreeable to everybody who was present, including our own representatives; and it was unanimously adopted.
In this resolution the General Assembly affirmed that genocide was a crime under international law which the civilised world condemned, and that those guilty of it, whoever they were and for whatever reason they committed it, were punishable. The Assembly invited the Member States to enact national legislation for the prevention and punishment of this crime, and recommended that international co-operation should be organised for its speedy prevention and punishment. It requested the Economic and Social Council to undertake the necessary steps for drawing up separate conventions for submission to the Assembly at its next regular session.
Well now, it is clear that the legal implications—and I should like to have

my hon. Friend's attention to this, because I gather there is some legal quibbling about what can or cannot be done —it is clear that the legal implications of the convention must have been known by us when the convention was agreed to and signed. I understand that the main arguments which were used against, the convention were, first, that genocide was already a crime under international law, following the precedent of the Nuremberg trials; and secondly, that if the government of any State were resolved to commit genocide no convention could deter them. In answer to these— and I anticipate the possibility of their being raised—I would point out that the Nuremberg judgment—and this has been held by highly important and knowledgable legal authorities—did not and could not establish genocide as an international crime. The Nuremberg law applied only to crimes committed during or in connection with war. It is very doubtful whether precedent can create international law. It must be considered that large numbers of countries do not accept precedent for creating law whether international or national. The Nuremberg Tribunal has been criticised by some eminent lawyers on the principle—"No punishment without law."
It is correct that no convention can prevent a Government from committing genocide if they are so determined, but the same argument could be brought forward against any convention. If a person is determined to commit piracy, to trade in women or children, in drugs or obscene publications, the existing conventions will not prevent his committing the crime, but the convention would give any country the right to apprehend and try the criminal wherever the crime is committed. The knowledge of this fact may deter the criminal from committing many crimes, though no convention, or criminal law for that matter, will prevent crime.
I hope I am not detaining the House too long, but I think it is important that the country should understand this matter and I do hope that my hon. Friend will try to help this very great and humane object which the United Nations are trying to bring into effect. The Convention itself—this Convention that has now been signed by us—contains a Preamble and 19 Articles, and I have tried to compress into as small a space


as possible the gist of the Preamble and Articles. In the Preamble the contracting parties referred to in the previous declaration—to which I have already referred— by the General Assembly in December, 1946, declare that genocide is a crime under international law, recognise that humanity has suffered great losses by these crimes, and believes that international co-operation is necessary to liberate mankind from it.
Article 1 states that genocide is a crime whether committed in time of peace or war. Article 2 attempts to define this crime. It lists five kinds of acts aimed at destroying a national, ethical, racial or religious group. These are killing numbers of a group, causing them bodily or mental harm, inflicting conditions on a group with the effect of its destruction, the prevention of births and the transferring of children forcibly from one group to another group. It states that certain steps directly lead to the crime, for example, stirring up people or inciting others to do so. This is one of the things I have referred to in the earlier part of my speech.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Can I ask my hon. Friend a question? Can we simplify this matter? Would it not be right to use the word "war" instead of the word "genocide"?

Mr. Janner: Genocide takes place, I am sorry to say, in times of peace as well as war. I should, perhaps, say a word or two on that point. I have already said, as my hon. Friend knows, that, in my view, a convention of this sort would help very considerably towards the elimination of war—if the peoples of the world only understood its implementations. They do not understand. They just take it for granted that there must be war. They ridicule, unfortunately, those organisations which are created by themselves in order to guard against war.
When the League of Nations was formed, instead of grasping the opportunity and the occasion firmly with enthusiasm, hon. Members in this House— I remember it—were asking questions such as, "Was it right that we should pay our share towards keeping up the League of Nations when China was not doing it?" And our share was in the nature of £1,000,000 or so. The same thing is happening in regard to the United

Nations organisation. Instead of the people in this land—and every land— being encouraged to support it, and to support its conventions—instead of that, very often—all too often—they are induced to ridicule them.
It is an intricate Convention, but I should like to try to explain its terms, and I hope the House will bear with me. I have described the crimes. The attempt to commit genocide is also listed, for example, just as we have in our own country a law that the attempt to commit murder, or the fact of being an accessory to murder, is a crime which is punishable by the State. Article 4 makes it clear that persons guilty of these crimes are to be punished. It states that guilty persons—and these are the words used:
shall be punished whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals.
These have all very great bearing in view of what happened under the Nazi regime and prior to that. Under Article 5 the countries, which accept the Convention, undertake to pass the necessary laws to give effect to it, and, in particular, to provide effective penalties for those guilty of genocide. Article 6 lays down that persons charged with genocide will be tried in the country in which the act was committed by an international tribunal, the jurisdiction of which has been accepted by the countries concerned.
Article 7 makes it clear that genocide is not to be considered a political crime and—this is extremely important to a country like ours with the great traditions we have of giving asylum to people in consequence of political persecution—that those charged with committing these crimes are not to be given the right of asylum. The States signing the Convention pledge themselves to grant extradition for genocide. Article 8 lays it down that those states accepting the Convention should be ready to call upon competent bodies like the United Nations to take appropriate action under the Charter to prevent genocide. Article 9 provides that any dispute relating to the Convention shall be submitted to the International Court of Justice. Other articles of the Convention cover such matters as signature and ratification as well as an invitation to non-members of the United Nations to subscribe to it.
It was stipulated that the Convention would come into force—this is important and it is why I cannot understand why we are standing aside—90 days after 20 countries have signed and ratified or acceded to it. No fewer than 43 nations have signed it so not only did we agree, in the first instance, to the resolution which was carried unanimously, but the Convention itself was carried unanimously with our assent. Up to now only eight nations, one of which I am happy to say is the Dominion of Australia, have ratified the Convention. It requires 20 nations to ratify it before it becomes international law, and when it becomes international law it will remain in force for 10 years and thereafter for five year periods for those countries which do not denounce it. It will cease to have effect if the countries adhering to it fall below 16.
I have tried to give a picture of what it has taken years in the United Nations to bring to a head. I have been present watching the work of the United Nations on many occasions. Every argument which has been brought forward by any nation is carefully considered. The House may be assured that the Convention had been accepted after the delegations that were present had decided whether certain proposals were legally possible or not. They agreed to sign the Convention and the question of ratification in my opinion ought to be a matter of very simple procedure.
Why should not we in this country take a lead as we have done for very many years in humanitarian directions. Taking it by and large a lead has been taken on many occasions to try to prevent that kind of brutality to which I have referred. Why should our nation not take a step which other nations of the world rightly expect us to take. We have not yet ratified this Convention, and that means that other nations, particularly those of smaller dimensions, seeing us stand aside will not sign it either.
I would ask my hon. Friend the Minister of State not to regard this matter as being something which ought to be set aside because of legalistic quibbles. It is not a question for legalistic quibbling. If some improvement of the terms have to be made in a legal sense let us take the lead in setting this right. Let us amend the wording, if that be the cause

of delay, so that the Convention can be brought into operation. Do not let us stand aside and say that we are a country which shrinks with horror at the gruesome acts and then refuse to sign the Convention because we cannot cast our eyes further. Look what we could have done if there had been a Convention of this sort when six million people were being done to death. It may be said, "Yes, we could not have prevented that, there would have been war," but if the League of Nations had had a Convention of that sort, we should at least have been able to persuade other nations to take action with ourselves to rescue people living and dying in those conditions.
This is a matter which cannot be set aside by question and answer in the House. It is a long time since 1948. The Convention was accepted in that year but there is no ratification in 1950. I with some of my hon. Friends have raised the matter from time to time in the House. We received sympathetic answers but were told that there are difficulties in the way. If there are difficulties let us sweep them aside, and, taking our courage in our hands, give the world a lead on this. I may be speaking with some emotion, but it is because I have heard and seen some of the things with which this Convention deals. I have seen the victims of these happenings. I have met and know men and women whose whole families have been sent to gas chambers, and who have seen them tortured and afflicted. These men and women will carry with them to the grave what they have seen of their relatives' distress. We cannot tolerate that kind of thing again.
I hope that my hon. Friend will not regard what I have said as being in the nature of censure. I hope he will regard it more in the nature of an appeal which will rouse his Department, the House and the country into action which is so imminently needed, bring respect of a great nature to the name of our country and enable us to take a lead in something which will redound not only to our credit but to the credit of civilisation as a whole and to the benefit of mankind.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I am sure that hon. Members who are present will agree that my hon. Friend the


Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner) has done a national and international service by drawing attention to the question of genocide. "Genocide" is not a word which people usually understand. I gathered that my hon. Friend defined it as "the deliberate destruction of whole groups of people because they belong to those particular groups." This became an urgent question of international importance and consideration as a result of the deliberate attempt by the Nazi regime in Germany to destroy the Jews.
One can understand the emotion and intense feeling of my hon. Friend in raising this question, but I believe I understand the attitude of the Government in refusing to ratify the Convention. If we are to outlaw genocide we have to outlaw war, for we cannot conduct war without deliberately destroying whole groups of people because they belong to certain groups. As far as we can understand the policy of this country, we are committed to a policy of international genocide. The foreign policy of this country and the policy of all Governments at present is the mass destruction of groups and nationalities with which they disagree.
I can quite understand the attitude of the Government. If genocide is to be considered an international crime and if, after another war, we are to have another Nuremberg trial, there might be in the dock not German statesmen but our own statesmen. We might find ourselves, as a result of the Convention, committed to trying the statesmen of all the world. If we had had this international Convention on genocide, with the very wide definition given by my hon. Friend, the people who decided on the dropping of the atom bomb would be in the dock, charged with genocide. We might have had a state of affairs in which we had to put President Truman in the dock charged with an international crime against humanity. We might have had the Leader of the Opposition in an international dock charged with crimes against humanity, because, according to this definition, anybody who connives at the deliberate destruction of whole groups of people because they belong to particular groups is an international criminal. We might have had the ironical situation of some of the people with the greatest international reputations in the world being looked upon as international criminals.
What could be expected of this Government, which is committed to a policy of international genocide? It is impossible to carry on a modern war without the deliberate destruction of whole groups of people, because they belong to particular groups. I understand that we are spending nearly £800 million this year in preparing for this kind of crime—and we are all involved because genocide is, in these days, a crime against humanity.
This respectable Convention, which met on the eve of victory in the last war, now comes up against this international contradiction, and we realise that the hopes of the United Nations to end war are regarded by many people in the world as international delusions. My hon. Friend has talked about us listening to the United Nations; some of us listened to the proceedings at the League of Nations. After every great war there is a mood of revulsion against war which results in an attempt to frame an international policy. The United Nations has not achieved the building up of a new international organisation which is to end the international crime of genocide.

Mr. Janner: I am sorry my hon. Friend is diverting this Debate into channels which, obviously, are not the proper channels. I understand why he does it, of course, and I dare say the House will, but the work of the United Nations should be looked upon and acted upon seriously and then he would have the answers to all his questions about war and the conduct of war.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I am carrying the argument of my hon. Friend to its logical conclusions.

Mr. Janner: Oh, no, my hon. Friend is not.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I am pointing out to my hon. Friend that if he wishes to outlaw genocide he should be prepared to outlaw war. That should carry him on to demanding the abolition of the atom bomb and the H-bomb and the ending of the enormous expenditure of all nations on preparations for another war. Far from depreciating the United Nations, I believe it is a great organisation with wonderful potentialities. My criticism is that we do not take the United Nations as seriously as we might and that at present we are not giving


the backing that should be given to the Secretary-General of the United Nations in his demand that the United Nations should work as it was meant to work. The United Nations has ceased to express the post-war hopes and aspirations of those who thought it would bring international peace; it has become the venue of conflict of international ideologists, and the Secretary-General of the United Nations is arguing, quite rightly, that the time has come when a great effort should be made to bring back the United Nations to its original purpose, which means working out a plan for the complete abolition of war.
I am concerned that His Majesty's Government have not treated this effort with the earnestness and seriousness it really deserves. How many of us really knew that Mr. Trygve Lie was in this country during his recent visit?

The Minister of State (Mr. Younger): Anybody who read the newspapers.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: The newspapers did not give a great deal of attention to his mission. The visit of Mr. Lie was dismissed summarily, in a small paragraph. When I ventured to ask the Prime Minister what encouragement he would give to Mr. Lie, I received no answer.
Compare that with the reception which Mr. Lie is getting in Moscow. Judging by the international Press, his mission to Moscow is being received there with great consideration and respect. Let us hope that he will succeed in bridging the gulf between East and West. I say to my hon. Friend, therefore, that if he wishes to defend any particular nation, or any section or race within a nation, he has to carry this argument to its logical conclusion and demand the abolition, not only of genocide, but of the atom bomb, the H-bomb and all the infernal instruments of modern war.
It may be said that other nations are preparing in this way and that we must be prepared, and as a result the old conflict will continue. This country will be piling up expenditure on armaments and saying that that is defensive policy. People on the other side of the Iron Curtain will argue in the same way; thus we shall head for the greatest international catastrophe in the history of humanity.

We are asked to consider what is, I think, a very great step towards outlawing the impending conflict. All that those of us who can express an opinion on this matter can do is to support very strongly the attitude of my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, North-West, who criticises the action of the Government in refusing to go even a very small part of the way on behalf of common humanity. If Australia has ratified the Convention, why cannot Great Britain do so?
I want to see a greater initiative from the British Government in the present international crisis. I do not want to see the foreign policy of a Socialist Government in Britain dragging on miserably behind the policy of the United States of America. We want to see the sentiments which have been voiced by my hon. Friend expressed in a new international policy which will avoid, not only the minor catastrophes, but the great major catastrophes that threaten civilisation.
The Prime Minister of India made a very interesting statement following the negotiations between India and Pakistan. He said, "We have gone right to the precipice, we have looked over it, and we have decided to turn back." If the other statesmen of the world, if the Americans, the British and all those who are now lining up behind so-called defence policies, do not go to the edge of the precipice, look over it and then retreat, the outlook for humanity is very dark indeed.

8.44 p.m.

Mr. John McKay: I have listened with interest to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner) who opened the Debate, and I have been stimulated in thought by my hon. Friend the Member for Ayrshire, South (Mr. Emrys Hughes), who spoke next and who, I thought, was very logical. Whatever hopes and ideals we may have with regard not only to genocide, but to any other things, the central factor which will help us to achieve these things will be the maintenance of peace. It is true, of course, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ayrshire, South has said, that if we allow ourselves to develop into war, many of these things will of necessity die.
Therefore, it is wise, when we are considering these matters, to get at their fullest depth. The United Nations, of


course, have been considering these things and my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, North-West has brought us to a very important part of their activities. There is no doubt that his desire to bring the public gaze of this country on to this matter is very wholesome and we all applaud him in that respect. When what he spoke of so emphatically and sincerely was taking place, the whole world considered it something almost beyond the thought of humanity.
The whole question develops into this. However far we may believe ourselves to be progressing, once we get into war our viewpoint, our attitudes, our whole personalities seem to change. Therefore, if we can argue, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ayrshire, South has argued, that whatever hopes we have of developing personality, developing fuller liberties, developing religious tolerance and developing also political liberty throughout the world—all these things depend, if we hope to maintain them, on maintaining the fundamental one of all, and that is universal peace.
How far we can succeed in obtaining that is one of the problems of today. Nevertheless, while we have that great problem before this nation and before the world, it should not in any way neutralise or weaken our efforts to put our own personalities, our own nationhood and our own rights and liberties into what we think are the right courses to develop. With my hon. Friends, I want to try to publicise the idea and bring it more into the light of day and emphasise that these two problems are inter-related. We cannot hope to maintain all of these things, or any of our ideals, until we can really solve that great world problem and get some foundation for future peace.

8.47 p.m.

Mr. Hector Hughes: I suggest to my hon. Friend the Member for Wallsend (Mr. Mackay) that he has put the matter too high in attempting to argue that the implementation of this Convention would bring about, or even tend to bring about, universal peace. I also think that my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) put the matter too high when he suggested that genocide and killing in war are one and the same thing. Indeed, I think he knew he was putting it too high because he said that he was not actually

stating the fact but carrying the matter to its logical conclusion. I do not agree that he was carrying the matter to its logical conclusion. He was simply omitting to give effect to certain words which occur in the Convention, particularly those words where genocide is actually defined.
It is right for the sake of accuracy, as this matter is before the House, that we should see what genocide means. It is defined in both a general and a particular manner in Article II. The general words are:
In the present Convention genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole, or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group as such.
Then the Article gives five sets of details. Genocide and killing in war might mean the same thing if the words "as such" were not there, but my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire gave no weight at all to the words "as such." The Convention says that genocide means killing:
a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
We all know that that is not a definition of war, that war is very different indeed. I do not think that my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire or my hon. Friend the Member for Wallsend have helped the cause they seek to aid by approaching it in the way in which they did.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner) has, on the other hand, performed a most useful service in bringing this matter before the House. It is right that the people of Britain, and indeed the people of the world, should know where Britain stands on this question. Britain occupies a position of leadership in international affairs and in this matter in particular Britain should clearly express and define her position so as to give leadership to any other nations which may be reluctant about implementing this Convention. It is good that publicity should be given to this matter, especially in view of the horrors of genocide in the Second World War, which we hope will be the last world war. Indeed, it is right that those horrors should be brought prominently before the people of the world, that every effort of the United Nations to reduce those horrors should


be made present to our minds and that those efforts should if possible be implemented.
This Convention on genocide was discussed by the General Assembly of the United Nations during five meetings. It was fully and amply discussed. It was passed on 9th December, 1948, by 55 votes to none. Not only were there no dissentients, but there were no abstentions. The Convention now awaits ratification or accession by the nations of the world.
Under Articles 11 and 12 the position is that the Convention was open to signature until 31st December, 1949, and since that date it
may be acceded to on behalf of any Member of the United Nations or any non-member State which has received an invitation. …
The great question now is, should Britain accede to it? Should Britain ratify it? One has only to read Articles 1 to 3 to see that the answer is, "Yes." Article 1 defines genocide as an international crime. It states:
The contracting parties confirm that genocide whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and punish.
Why should Britain not undertake to prevent and punish this international crime? Why should Britain not play her part in giving leadership to the nations of the world in this crucial matter, which affects not only the peace and happiness but the very existence of civilisation itself? It is provided that the Convention shall come into force on the ninetieth day after 20 states have deposited with the Secretary-General their instruments of ratification or accession. I can see no reason either in war, or politics or humanitarianism why this Convention should not be acceded to promptly.
I do not rely on my own views of this Convention. I would like to refer to what was said by Dr. Herbert Evatt, the President of the General Assembly about this Convention. He said:
In this field relating to the sacred right of existence of human groups we are proclaiming today the supremacy of international law once and for ever
Then, again, he said:
Today, we are establishing international safeguards for the very existence of such human groups.

Again, he said:
Our approval of this Convention marks a significant advance in the development of international criminal law.
Those are the words of Dr. Evatt, President of the General Assembly, a great world leader.
I would, with respect, add that we all know that formerly the basic human We all know that the civilised nations of the world have advanced greatly during the past 50 years. If ever any good thing comes out of war one of the good things that came out of the two world wars was a higher and nobler conception of human rights, of national rights and of group rights. This convention expresses that higher and nobler conception with regard to the duties of human beings, and nations, towards groups.
This is a great step. As I have said, Britain occupies a position of leadership in international affairs and here is an opportunity for her once again to demonstrate that leadership. I hope she will do so, and I hope that my right hon. Friend, when he replies, will be able to give us an assurance that that implementation will take place at an early date.

8.58 p.m.

The Minister of State (Mr. Younger): Since my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner) raised this question of the Genocide Convention in a very sincere and moving speech we have ranged a very long way. I hope the House will not expect me to follow up all the points which have since been made. I wish to deal, I hope in a way which will give my hon. Friend some satisfaction, with the matter of which he gave me notice. I do not wish to go into the very much wider question of international peace raised by subsequent speakers.
There is one thing which was said by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) which I really cannot allow to go by unchallenged. It is by no means the only thing which he said with which I disagree but, I think it is one which I cannot allow to go by unheeded. He said that when Mr. Trygve Lie, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, recently passed through here on his way to visit other places in Europe very little notice was taken of him, very much less notice than was taken of him in Moscow.
The hon. Member asked how many people knew that Mr. Lie was here, and I interjected, "Anybody who read the newspapers." I think everybody who was interested in this subject knew perfectly well that Mr. Lie was here. In fact, Mr. Lie saw a number of important people. He saw the Prime Minister. I think he had long conversations with everybody he wished to see, and I would remind my hon. Friend that there are few people in political life of any party complexion in this country whom Mr. Lie does not know. He saw everyone he wished to see, and he had private discussions.
If there was not much comment in the Press about this it was partly because these were confidential talks, and partly because we are well known to have been supporters of United Nations in the past and to be in broad agreement with Mr. Lie, among others, about the way in which United Nations should function. Therefore, talks of this kind do not make news in the same way as it makes news when Mr. Lie goes to Moscow and is known to be discussing the future of the United Nations, whose progress has been so signally obstructed over the past five years by the Government of the Soviet Union.
From a journalistic point of view it was, perhaps, a matter of greater interest to try to ascertain what sort of reception Mr. Lie may have had in Moscow. Even there, I would point out to my hon. Friend that these conversations, too, are still confidential, and all that is known about them is what Mr. Lie has seen fit to say. I really could not let go by a comment which seemed to suggest that we were more backward in our support of the United Nations and all that it stands for than any other Government. The contrary is the case.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Mr. Emrys Hughes rose——

Mr. Younger: I cannot give way to my hon. Friend. He took up a very long time in discussing a matter which most of us did not think was to be discussed. We respect his views, he has given them to us, and I do not think I need give way at this stage.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, North-West, described the Convention. He gave some indication of what it contained and how it came into

existence. I assure him that the Government share, and always have shared, his abhorrence of the type of crimes which this Convention is designed to meet. It was for that reason, of course, that His Majesty's Government and our delegation supported the original resolution quite soon after the war, when it was proposed that something of this kind should be devised. We also took our full part throughout all the discussions in the United Nations which led up to the adoption of this Convention by the General Assembly in December, 1948.
I would point out to him that in the Legal Committee, where the working out of this Convention had taken place before it was finally presented to the Assembly, we had very many misgivings about the practicability of some of the legal provisions of this Convention. Many of our suggestions were accepted, but not all of them, and so far were we from being reassured—not about the purpose, on which we had no dispute with anybody, but about the effectiveness of this instrument—that in the final vote in the Legal Committee we felt obliged to abstain. When the matter went to the Assembly it was much more a broad political than a legal issue.

Mr. Janner: Mr. Janner rose——

Mr. Younger: My hon. Friend will please allow me to explain, because, clearly, he does not understand this part of the argument. On purely legal grounds in the Legal Committee we expressed our misgivings, but when it came to the General Assembly, as we were in complete accord with the purpose for which this Convention was designed, we voted, as did everybody else present, for the convention; but we were obliged even then to accompany our vote by the reservation that we could not, without further examination, be taken to be committing ourselves to changes in our own domestic law. In particular, we said that we could not commit ourselves, at that stage, to action which would prejudice our long-established and traditional right to grant asylum to persons who were charged with political offences.
That was the position at the time when this Convention was voted unanimously by the General Assembly. The conditions in which it will come into effect shortly


after 20 ratifications have been lodged, have been described by my hon. Friend. I think that the fact that, despite that unanimous resolution in which we took part, only seven ratifications and three accessions have so far been received, indicates that other countries besides ourselves have found that there are difficulties when we come to the legal application of this Convention, and that they, like ourselves, feel the necessity for very careful study. I will not put it higher than that, but it is significant that out of the whole body of nations who voted as we did, so far there are only that small number of ratifications.
I now come to the legal aspect, because it is—and I should like to assure my hon. Friend of this—the legal difficulties which have so far held up our ratification and, I should imagine, that of many of the other States who also have not ratified. Genocide, as such, has not previously been known to the British criminal law, but it is, of course, in most of its aspects, already covered by existing law. The great part of the crime of genocide would be covered, either by the law relating to murder or by the law relating to grievous bodily harm, and by various aspects of the existing criminal law. The terms in which the definition of genocide is expressed are terms which are, in certain of the clauses, unfamiliar to English law, and it is a matter of some difficulty to be quite sure how far they are covered and how far, on the other hand, they are perhaps too vague even to be readily put upon the Statute Book as criminal offences in this country.
This is a matter which has given us very considerable difficulty. We have not felt it right to rush the studies of the legal experts in this matter because—and I think my hon. Friend will agree with me —there is really no danger of the crime of genocide being committed in this country and we feel that our law in the spirit is generally adequate to deal with this matter.

Mr. Janner: I hope my right hon. Friend has not misunderstood me. I have not suggested that the law in our country requires much alteration to cope with anything that happens in this country. The important matter is that we should take a part in stopping this from

happening elsewhere, and not merely say that it is the internal affair of the other country. It is happening today.

Mr. Younger: If my hon. Friend will just wait and let me explain this, I am coming to precisely that point. I think that the importance of this Convention from the point of view of British accession is not for any effect it might have in relation to offences of this kind committed in this country. With the exception of certain phrases which, as I say, are very vague, and which I would hesitate to say could be readily put upon the Statute Book as crimes, it is broadly true that the English criminal law is already well adapted to deal with most crimes of genocide.
The practical importance turns, firstly, upon the obligation which this might impose upon us in respect of genocide committed abroad, and also of course, on the estimate of the effectiveness which we think this instrument would have in preventing genocide abroad. On that last point I take a much less optimistic view of the effect this Convention would have upon the sort of offences my hon. Friend enumerated than does my hon. Friend, but the main point I want to make is the obligation which might be imposed upon us in respect of genocide committed abroad.
That brings me to the Article to which my hon. Friend referred and quoted as being especially important. It is Article 7, which relates to extradition, and reads:
Genocide and the other acts enumerated in Article 3
which is the definition of genocide—
shall not be considered as political crimes for the purpose of extradition.
The Contracting Parties pledge themselves in such cases to grant extradition in accordance with their laws and treaties in force.
It is particularly the first part of that Article to which I draw attention:
Genocide and the other acts enumerated in Article 3 shall not be considered as political crimes for the purpose of extradition.
That Article is in direct conflict with our own Extradition Act of 1870, which precludes the surrender of a fugitive criminal if the offence in respect of which his surrender is demanded is one of a political character. The question whether or not it is of a political character is


open to decision either by the courts or, in the last resort, by the Secretary of State. What we are required to do under Article 7 is to lay down by Statute that in no case is it open to the courts or to the Secretary of State to refuse the surrender of the person accused of genocide on the ground that the offence is political. Therefore, I think there can be very little doubt that if we were to accept that as it stood we should have to amend our existing law. I think there is very little doubt indeed that that would be the case.

Mr. Janner: Mr. Janner rose——

Mr. Younger: Perhaps my hon. Friend will let me continue. He had a very good innings, if I may say so.
That perhaps would not matter if, in the definition of genocide as it stands in the Convention, it was on the face of it clear that genocide could not be a political act, and if the definition was such as to make it quite obvious that in no circumstances could there ever be this particular difficulty arising. I do not think that this is the case. I think that one could easily conceive cases where the surrender of a person on the ground of having committed genocide was demanded, and where under our Extradition Act a court or the Secretary of State might well decide that this was an offence of a political character.
I am sure that everybody will agree that it is most important that we should look at this matter with the utmost care. We have had cases quite recently, and they have happened from time to time during the last 50 years, in which we have been asked to surrender people who were fugitives from their own countries as the result of disturbances, civil war and all sorts of disputes. There have been cases when we refused to do this under this part of the Extradition Act of 1870, because we were not prepared to give up a political refugee to the other side in his political quarrel. I do not think anybody on either side of the House would wish me to suggest that we should lightly decide this without being quite sure where we stand on the matter. If it were really the case that genocide could not in any circumstances be a political crime, there would not have been any need for Article 7. It is precisely because there is a danger that it might have political implications that Article 7 has been put

in, in the hope that, in that way it would not be possible for the State to refuse extradition on that ground.
I am not saying that this is a matter which is yet quite clear, but that it certainly is the most important of the rather numerous legal points which arise and which require to be very fully studied. There is one other fairly recent complication which we had not anticipated and which must come under discussion with the Secretary-General of the United Nations and with the other persons who took part in framing this Convention. The Soviet Union has now purported to sign this Convention with reservations, and that, I understand, raises an exceptionally difficult question of international law—the question whether we, were we now to ratify it, would be taken to accept the Soviet reservations. I understand that the balance of opinion is that we should be taken to have accepted it, and this would affect the position of the International Court in this matter. That comes under Article 9, and the possibility under the Convention of referring disputes and questions relating to the responsibility of statesmen or parties is, in fact, almost the only part of the Convention which contains any teeth.
It is perhaps one of the inevitable effects of a Convention like this that whereas it might well prove to be fairly effective in cases where private citizens commit genocide, it is certainly very much less effective, though not wholly ineffective, where it is a State or a Government that is concerned. It has usually been a Government, because, in the nature of things, it has nearly always been a question of a State or Government being guilty of this offence. Article 7 of this Convention sets up an international authority which could exercise some useful if not direct control over a State conniving at or responsible for these offences, but this, is the very Article upon which this reservation has been lodged.
We are entering into discussions upon this question with the United Nations and other parties, and it is not unreasonable to ask that we should have some time to consider this. As I said in my opening remarks, we have always agreed with those who put forward this Convention in the purpose they have in mind, and we share their detestation of the crime of


genocide and have many times expressed it. We believe in a principle, in relation to international Conventions, which, I may say, is not by any means universally accepted—that if we ratify a Convention, we mean to implement. We do not think we should ratify this Convention until we are satisfied how it is going to affect, in particular, this right to grant asylum to which we attach very great importance as, I am sure, does my hon. Friend, and until we are quite sure, in regard to the question of these reservations, just what it is we are ratifying. That does not seem to me an unreasonable point of view. I hope we will be able to clear up this matter.
I would repeat to my hon. Friend that all but a very few States who were just as keen about it as anyone else, are finding something of the same difficulties. These legal difficulties are not, as he seemed to think, just legal quibbles. If he were a refugee, I am sure he would not regard asylum as a matter of a legal quibble. Therefore, I would only ask him to preserve a little patience in this matter, and I give him the assurance that if we can solve these difficulties, as we hope to do, we then hope to be able to ratify this Convention.

Mr. Janner: Would my hon. Friend answer two points? First, how much longer does he think it will take before this matter will be sufficiently considered so that we may be able to discuss it in this House again if there happens to be any difference of opinion on the legalistic side? Second, on the question of political asylum, will he say——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but he is not entitled to make another speech; he is only entitled to ask a question.

Mr. Janner: What I was saying was in the nature of a question. With the greatest respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I was asking my hon. Friend whether he

would say, on the question of political asylum, if he thinks that asylum should be given to a person or persons who have been accused, and against whom there is a prima facie case, or a case of genocide?

Mr. Younger: I must say I am rather surprised that a lawyer should think it possible for me to say when lawyers will reach a conclusion. We are, as I say, in discussion. We have been considering the question of our own domestic law for a rather long time, as my hon. Friend knows, but this question of Soviet reservations is a matter which affects all the other parties, including those who have ratified, and whose ratification might be brought into doubt thereby. We are in communication with them and with the organisation itself. That is, I think, a recent development, so I cannot give my hon. Friend a promise on that matter.
His second question was whether I would expect anyone to get political asylum if a prima facie case has been made out against them. I thought I made it clear that the definition of genocide may well include cases which have a political nature, and which are of the type for which, traditionally, we have always given asylum. One thing which might amount to genocide is the causing of serious mental or bodily harm, or, indeed, killing members of a national group with intent partly to destroy the group. That is something which might arise in many a civil war, not to mention the international wars to which my hon. Friend has referred. I think he will see that it covers just the sort of case in which, in the past, we have always insisted on withholding the surrender, as it might be, of the defeated party to his enemies in his own country. I think that answers my hon. Friend's question.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Nineteen Minutes past Nine o'Clock.